PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Development Agency Bill
	 — 
	Milford Haven Port Authority Bill [Lords]

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Committee of Selection

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [16 October],
	That Mr. John Hayes be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Peter Luff be added to the Committee—[Mr. Woolas.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate to be resumed on Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Flood Alleviation

Huw Edwards: If she will make a statement on Government investment in flood alleviation measures.

Elliot Morley: Flood management is a devolved responsibility and my answer relates to England only, where total Government funding on flood defence has risen from #312 million in 1997–98 to a projected #564 million in 2005–06. That is a substantial increase and is proof of the Government's continuing commitment to maintenance and improvement of flood defences.

Huw Edwards: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply and acknowledge the significant increase in investment that the Government are putting in. Although I accept that his answer relates to England, I can assure him that the Welsh Assembly has funded a feasibility study in Monmouth which will hopefully lead to flood alleviation measures and prevent further flooding such as that which occurred in the past two years.
	I draw my hon. Friend's attention to two main points. Despite assurances from the Association of British Insurers, certain people find that they are insured with a company—with Lloyds as the underwriter—that has not necessarily followed the same agreement with the Government. A constituent of mine, Dr. Jana Horak, was insured by Britannia Building Society and has been refused insurance twice. Will my hon. Friend also consider whether the Environment Agency could have more powers in relation to the tributaries to main rivers, which are often the cause of flooding?

Elliot Morley: I am pleased to hear that flood defence schemes are going ahead in my hon. Friend's constituency; I am sure that that will be a great relief to his constituents. In that respect, I am somewhat surprised that there is a problem with insurance. The ABI announcement, which we thought helpful and constructive, said that insurance would continue to be provided by ABI's members in areas where flood defences may not exist at the moment but are planned within the next seven years. In fact, even in areas where there are no plans for flood defences, such issues will be looked at case by case. I suggest to my hon. Friend that his constituents should shop around the various companies. I know that a great many companies accept the commitments that the Government have given; they continue to provide that insurance, and we continue to work closely with the ABI. I should also point out that the chief executive of the ABI will speak to the associate parliamentary group on flooding at the Palace of Westminster at the end of this month. That will provide an opportunity for my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to put questions directly to the ABI.

Charles Hendry: The Minister will recall his visit to Uckfield, in my constituency, two years ago this week, after the terrible flood that caused so much damage there. He will also recall the pledge that he made then, and which the Prime Minister repeated: that the Government would take action to prevent future floods. However, he will know that in spite of the extra money that he has mentioned, the Environment Agency is not proposing any significant plans to prevent future flooding in Uckfield, thereby making many homes and businesses uninsurable. Before we meet the agency next week, will he remind it of those pledges and say that doing nothing is not an option?

Elliot Morley: I am aware of those pledges. In fact, I visited Uckfield on a number of occasions, and I want progress to be made on reducing flood risk. The hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware that severe technical problems exist in Uckfield in terms of an appropriate flood defence. The narrowing of the river, and the role of the road bridge and of the mill, give rise to difficulties. It is difficult to overcome those technical problems, but despite that the agency is looking at immediate measures to try to improve the flow of water through Uckfield. Of course, it is also looking at a longer-term strategy through the catchment plan study. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that some of the new building that has taken place in Uckfield in recent years has not been carried out on a particularly appropriate site.

Derek Foster: Will my hon. Friend convey my deep appreciation to the Environment Agency and the flood defence committee in my constituency, following the horrific floods more than two years ago in South Church and West Auckland? Some #4.5 million was spent, and the thoroughness of their planning and the way in which they consulted local people and local authorities was exemplary and much appreciated.

Elliot Morley: I am very pleased to hear that comment from my right hon. Friend. I received a very detailed representation from his constituents about the terrible impact of those floods at the time, which demonstrates the social and personal consequences of flooding. I am pleased that the schemes are going ahead, however, and I am particularly pleased about the way in which local communities are being involved in the consultation, planning and discussion of future flood defence schemes. I hope that that is effective and that it reduces the risk that his constituents have faced over recent years.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that, of course, the increased contribution to flood defences is welcome in global terms, but the insurance industry is still concerned about the lack of specifics? Will he take note of the example of Scotland, where not only is proportional expenditure on flood defences growing at a faster rate than in England, but there is a statutory obligation to report flood defences? Insurance companies in England are complaining that they have insufficient information about flood defences, which they have to glean from local newspaper reports. As a result, premiums are higher and the threat to insurance cover is greater. Does he not recognise that statutory reporting would give the insurance companies the opportunities that they need to provide competitive premiums, rather than everybody paying higher premiums across the board while some people run the risk of not being covered at all?

Elliot Morley: I certainly accept that information is crucial in ascertaining risk, and that ascertaining risk determines insurance premiums and insurance availability. I do not close my mind to any of those approaches. The ABI has talked about such measures in discussions with us, and we are willing to consider them. I want to emphasise, however, that we have a good dialogue with the insurance companies and a major forward capital investment plan. We are making our information available, which is very much appreciated—as is the extra money—and we are very much on track to reduce substantially the risk of flooding in this country, although no one, in any circumstances, can guarantee that floods will not happen.

David Drew: Can my hon. Friend enlighten me on the discussions that the Select Committee had more than a year ago on the idea of paying farmers to allow their land to flood naturally as an effective means of flood protection? In what way might he influence possible changes in the planning system to ensure the introduction of a genuine precautionary principle, so that we do not build on a flood plain and end up with many of the risks that, only too often, have come to fruition?

Elliot Morley: I was impressed by the quality of the Select Committee report, which considered flood defence strategy in depth. We accept that there is a case for looking at a range of sustainable measures in relation to flood defence. One of them could be reinstating flood meadows and flood plains. Recently, I opened the Washbanks scheme, which is one of the managed realignment schemes whereby landowners have either sold their land or entered into countryside stewardship agreements, as part of a sophisticated and sustainable approach to defending our coast, shores and rivers, which produces an environmental and, in some cases, an economic gain, too.

John Hayes: The Minister will know of grave concerns in many constituencies, including mine, which have, in effect, been designated as at risk from flooding, according to the Environment Agency flood plain maps. That is despite highly efficient internal drainage, good flood defences and no record of recent floods. Surely it is common sense that such assessments take proper heed of such factors, and not just of topography, to assuage the fears of householders, businesses, insurers and economic investors.

Elliot Morley: It is certainly the case that if people are in a flood risk area, it does not necessarily mean that the risks of flooding are very high. It is important, however, that people who are in a flood risk area are aware of what those risks are. That is part of the Environment Agency's flood awareness campaign. Interpreting that is part of our dialogue with insurance companies. We, with the Environment Agency, are investing in much more accurate digital mapping in relation to flood risk. Again, that helps people to understand the risk, which should mean that people do not face difficulties with insurance cover for the future.

Mr. Speaker: I call Dr. Pugh. Sorry, Mr. Hayes has a further question.

John Hayes: I accept what the Minister says about discussions with insurance companies but, as he will have heard earlier from the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), that is by no means universally successful. I am surprised that the Minister did not mention obliging local authorities to carry out strategic flood risk assessments, which would have been a better answer, if I might say so. The problem with those assessments is that they are largely unfunded, they are not always done in areas where the local authority has the resources or the wherewithal to commit to carry them out quickly, and the maps are still in existence. Until those flood plain maps are withdrawn, economic investors, local people and, as we have heard, some insurers will continue to believe that areas with no risk, in real terms, of flooding—and no record of flooding—are dangerous places to live in, to invest in and to insure. That needs to be dealt with urgently. The Minister has a responsibility to assuage those fears.

Elliot Morley: The insurance industry is a free-market industry, and people are free to shop around and to get the best quote and the most appropriate cover. It is interesting that the Conservatives feel that we should somehow interfere with that market mechanism.
	Local authority assessments are not really suitable for insurance companies in relation to such issues, but digital mapping most certainly is. In my experience, the main insurance companies are well aware of how to interpret the risks shown in flood-risk mapping. I am a Lincolnshire Member of Parliament and I am not aware of widespread problems in obtaining insurance in Lincolnshire. The problem should be put into perspective. More information is certainly important and realistic interpretation is absolutely vital. We will continue our dialogue with the insurance companies and others to make sure that the risks are understood.

Mr. Speaker: I call Dr. Pugh again.

Recycling

John Pugh: If she will make a statement on the role of doorstep collection and taxation measures in increasing recycling rates.

Michael Meacher: The answer remains the same. The Prime Minister's strategy unit is currently completing a study on waste. As part of this, it is considering what mechanisms and instruments will best help to achieve our aim of increasing household waste recycling.

John Pugh: Does the Minister recognise that many councils are currently stretched to find the resources to set up doorstep recycling schemes? Despite a very co-operative public in my constituency, the local council is forced to run plastic recycling schemes only in areas that can draw upon specific and additional grants, such as those for neighbourhood renewal. Such areas are not always the best ones for high-volume recycling. Will the Minister undertake to look into this specific problem?

Michael Meacher: Of course, I am very concerned about levels of recycling, including kerbside collection. To reach the challenging targets for recycling that we have set, our view is that all authorities—or certainly most of them—will have to adopt kerbside collection.
	I am surprised by what the hon. Gentleman said about funding. In the spending review 2000, we increased spending on the environmental protection and cultural services part of the revenue support grant by #1.1 billion in the third year over baseline. In the spending review 2002, we increased that provision by a further #670 million for the three years to 2005–06. Final decisions on additional funding will be made when the strategy unit's report is published.
	In addition to that, we have just made allocations of #140 million under the local authority recycling waste minimisation fund. Of 196 bids, 112 were successful and #50 million has been distributed. The hon. Gentleman's local authority should have the resources necessary to meet the targets.

Mark Lazarowicz: One of the most interesting pieces of taxation designed to encourage recycling recently has been the decision in the Irish Republic to introduce a tax on plastic disposable shopping bags. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of early-day motion 1730 in my name, which now receives the support from dozens of Members on both sides of the House, calling for such a tax in this country. Will he give us an idea of whether he is considering the introduction of such a measure in the United Kingdom?

Michael Meacher: We have been watching closely what has happened in Ireland. I understand that there has been a 90 per cent. reduction in the use of plastic bags. In this country, the figures are quite daunting. Eight billion plastic bags are used every year, which, on average, is about 135 for each person. Therefore, reducing that figure would be very worthwhile. A plastic bag tax is not the only way of dealing with the problem, but I assure my hon. Friend that the strategy unit has been to Ireland, talked to those involved, and will certainly be considering this point in its report.

David Lidington: Although we all support the idea of increasing the collection of goods for recycling, the Minister will surely accept that that does not finish the process. Recycling is accomplished when one has an economic use for the product to be recycled. The Government have just signed up to new European regulations, which will come into force in a couple of years, on the disposal of electronic and electrical goods. However, we know that there are some products—the plastic casings from video and cassette recorders, for example—for which there is no available use at the moment. What does the Minister intend to do in the intervening few years to try to encourage the private sector to develop alternative uses for some of those materials, so that we can avoid what happened with fridges and ensure that the entire system is in place when the new regulations come into force?

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has just answered his own question. There are two or three years before 2005–06, when the directive on waste from electrical and electronic equipment comes into force, and one means of ensuring that the technology is put in place is the pressure exerted by the directive. It is right that electrical and electronic goods should not be landfilled. That is not an appropriate form of environmental disposal. It is clearly right that such goods should be recycled and reused.
	The difference in the case of fridges is that the regulation became operative throughout the European Community on day one, which was 1 January 2002, whereas a directive that has to be transposed gives industry much more time properly to accommodate it. That is exactly what we intend. We have already had extensive discussions with industry, and I shall ensure that there are appropriate reprocessing uses for all those electrical products.

Organic Action Plan

Joan Ruddock: What progress she has made with the organic action plan; and if she will make a statement.

Michael Meacher: Work is continuing on the 21 points in the organic action plan. It is a plan for the whole food chain, and a number of stakeholders, including retailers, have work in hand to take forward the plan's objectives. In DEFRA we are focusing on amendments to the organic farming scheme, on organic standards for the UK and on setting up a new organic advisory committee.

Joan Ruddock: I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their commitment on this issue and their positive responses to the organic targets campaign. We now have in place a plan and a significant target but no time frame. Will my right hon. Friend therefore introduce measures to make it necessary to achieve by 2010 the target of 70 per cent. of organic produce to come from British producers?

Michael Meacher: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the organic action plan, which the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), launched on 29 July. It has been universally well received and we certainly intend now to put it into place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has rightly said, there is a commitment to increase to 70 per cent. the market share of UK-grown organic products, which is more than double the current level of 30 per cent.
	It is reasonable, however, that there is a time scale within which it must be achieved. It is not for the Government unilaterally to pick that deadline; clearly we must consult the industry and the British Retail Consortium about what is practicable. I chair the organic action plan group and, at the next meeting, I shall be raising the deadline as a major item on the agenda because I entirely agree that, for the plan to be successful, there must be not only a target but a deadline by which it must be achieved.

Simon Thomas: I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming the National Assembly's decision this week to extend organic stewardship for farmers in Wales. It is a very welcome step. Is he aware of the threat that inadequate labelling of genetically modified food poses to the organic market, both for farmers and consumers? Will he take this opportunity to clarify at the European level the Government's position on what will happen with GM labelling and its relationship to an important and growing organic market in this country?

Michael Meacher: Yes; it is an important issue. Let me make it clear that the Government strongly support a framework of labelling and traceability to the fullest extent that is practicable and workable. We support the proposal, which is probably being discussed at this very moment in Luxembourg, for a 1 per cent. threshold for the labelling of adventitious GM presence in non-GM products.
	The issue to which the hon. Gentleman may be referring, which is much more difficult, is the labelling of GM-derived products. As I said, I am strongly sympathetic to the argument that we should have the fullest and most appropriate labelling for the consumer. The problem is that there is no distinguishability in DNA terms between GM derivatives and non-GM derivatives. For example, that is the case with highly refined maize oils. Apart from that logistical problem, if there is an insistence on labels, despite the issue of traceability and very long supply chains that often start outside the European Union, they could not be guaranteed and could be seriously misleading to the consumer. We must bear in mind that constraint.

David Kidney: Once again, news from a major retailer this week tells of another increase in sales of organic produce, the majority of which is provided by imports. Does my right hon. Friend, like me, see that farmers are holding back from converting to organic farming because they fear that by the time that they have converted, the price premium will be lost to them? Can his Department reassure farmers so as to persuade more of them to undertake the conversion?

Michael Meacher: That is a very important issue. My hon. Friend is right that the major multiple retailers are being very helpful in trying to increase sales of organic products. Without seeking to make a commercial plug, I can say that Waitrose and Sainsbury's are seeking to increase import replacement in respect of organic products, which is very helpful.
	On my hon. Friend's question about farmers converting, we have now extended the organic farming scheme to ensure that farmers who have converted can enter into five-year agreements to observe the environmental conditions of the scheme in return for payments. We have also very substantially increased conversion aid for top fruit production. For top fruit conversions, we are now proposing to pay #600 per hectare per year for the first three years and #30 for the next seven years. We are considering long-term payment commitments to encourage farmers to initiate conversion, with the assurance that they will continue long enough for conversion to be well worth while commercially.

James Gray: The Government constantly talk about their support for organic farming, but the reality is rather different. Some 70 per cent. of organic food is imported, only 4 per cent. of UK farmland is handed over to organic production and the funds available for conversion are wildly inadequate. The organic milk price is now below the non-organic price, so a number of milk producers are going the wrong way and switching back to non-organic production. As to GM, the truth is that this Government are going to allow the planting of GM maize crops within 200 m of organic ones, with the serious risk of cross-fertilisation. Does the Minister not understand that we do not need any more focus groups, initiatives, launches, leaflets or committees? He was on about committees again a moment ago, but what the people of this country want is decent, British-produced organic produce at a decent price.

Michael Meacher: It behoves me to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box, as I believe that that was his first appearance there. If it is to be characteristic of all his appearances, I can see that we are going to have a lot of fun.
	What the hon. Gentleman did not say is that while the total sums available for organic farming are still relatively small, they are hugely increasing on the level that we inherited. The amount provided this year is #20 million, but when his Government left office, it was half a million pounds, so it does not behove him to criticise us. That amount may not be enough, but I would have hoped that, as we have increased it 40 times in five years, we might get some congratulation from him. I am very keen to see an increase in UK-grown organic production. I repeat that the organic action plan, which the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), launched two or three months ago, has gone down extremely well in all sections of the organic industry. We are pressing the issue as fast as the industry believes seriously possible.
	On GM, the separation distances to which the hon. Gentleman referred were those operated by the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops, SCIMAC—the biotech industry—on the basis that they would be sufficient to prevent cross-contamination. In the event of three years of the farm scale evaluation trials, no organic crop has lost its certification as a result of the GM trials, but of course this is a serious issue, which we are further considering.
	I repeat that #20 million is now going into organic—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) asked six or seven questions; I shall answer only three or four, but it he wants me to go on, I shall be glad to do so. We are putting #20 million into organic production this year. That figure will rise in the next two or three years to at least #23 million, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that that is a vast improvement on anything that his Government could do.

Sugar

Vincent Cable: What recent assessment she has made of the impact of the sugar regime on (a) UK consumers and (b) developing country exporters.

Alun Michael: The Government fully support the case for reform of the EU sugar regime, particularly in respect of price and market access.

Vincent Cable: Does the Minister agree that the present system is extremely attractive to large beet growers and to the company which has a virtual monopoly of processing, but is extremely damaging to consumers, taxpayers and, above all, large numbers of very poor people in low income countries, who are trying to sell into a world market where the price is a third of that in Europe? As the first step to the reform which he acknowledges is needed, will he join me in supporting Oxfam's demand for an immediate 25 per cent. cut in quota production?

Alun Michael: The UK is a leading advocate of the need for sugar reform, and I acknowledge that the current regime distorts international trade, and that that is to the detriment of many potential developing country suppliers. The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter on a number of occasions and he is right to do so. The specific proposals from Oxfam need to be dealt with by international agreement, and we will continue to press for that agreement and for the change and reform of the system.

Henry Bellingham: As the Minister is aware, the UK is not self-sufficient in sugar production. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) pointed out, it is not just a matter of rich farmers in East Anglia who are no longer making a profit. The issue affects all the add-on jobs in sugar beet factories, transport, haulage, subcontracting and other service industries, where many jobs are at stake. Will the Minister bear in mind the key point that this country is not self-sufficient in sugar production?

Alun Michael: Of course we are concerned about the sugar industry in this country, but it is unacceptable that the EU prices are currently three or four times the world level of prices. That is why early decisions are needed on the reform, so that all interested parties, including those in this country and in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries—the preferential suppliers—are able to plan ahead. We need the reform to take place as quickly as possible.

Sea Fishing Industry

Lawrie Quinn: If she will make a statement on her assessment of the prospects for a sustainable sea fishing industry in the North sea.

Elliot Morley: It is our aim in the current common fisheries policy negotiations to achieve a more sustainable sea fish industry, and that key objective underpins our approach to the negotiations.

Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend will be aware that tomorrow the Whitby and district fishing training school will be opened for the first time, allowing 10 new apprentices to get the training onshore that they need for the key skills in the industry. Does he agree with the director of the school, Mr. Tony Hornigold, who said in the Whitby Gazette:
	XPeople have said fishing is a dying industry. It's not a dying industry, it's a changing industry." In that spirit, will my hon. Friend take an early opportunity in the new year to come and meet those apprentices and people from the industry, to discuss the vibrant and sustainable industry to which they can look forward in the years to come?

Elliot Morley: I agree that with the changes that the industry faces, there are still a great many opportunities, and fish is still a premium quality product for which there is a high demand from consumers. We should not say that the industry does not have a bright future. The fact that 10 apprentices are undergoing training demonstrates that there are young people who see their future in the industry. That is why my Department was glad to support the training initiative financially. I hope that my hon. Friend will pass on my warmest congratulations to everybody who has been involved in setting up the training centre in Whitby. I was invited, but I am sorry that I cannot be there because of my diary commitments. I would like to come there on some future occasion and speak to the apprentices and the members of local industry.

Alex Salmond: Why has the Minister so lost the confidence of the fishing industry that industry leaders were forced to describe his performance and that of his Scottish counterpart this week at the European Council as Xsurreal"? What justice, if any, has he secured for distant water fishermen? How can he have taken a decision that could cost thousands of jobs in the fishing industry without any appreciation of the financial consequences to the fishing communities? Why does he accept hook, line and sinker the Commission's proposals without considering the consequences to a mixed fishery? Why has someone of his long experience so taken his eye off the ball? How has he become the David Seaman of the fishing industry?

Elliot Morley: At the recent Council meeting I met representatives of the UK industry—the Scottish, English and Irish sectors—along with my counterpart from the Scottish Executive, and what we said to the industry was identical. There was not the slightest difference in our approach, which is a common, agreed approach, so what I find surreal is to say that there is a contrast. The reality is that we broadly support the Commission's proposals because many of our fish stocks are in a desperate state and we cannot ignore that. I made it clear to the industry that I do not discount the impact of whatever conservation measure we take, as I have repeatedly said, and I also fully recognise the problems presented by mixed stock fishery management. I am trying to find an effective, long-term and sustainable way of bringing about the recovery of those of our stocks that are under the most stress, particularly North sea cod, and take into account the views of the industry, which will be fully engaged in the process.

Common Agricultural Policy

Archy Kirkwood: If she will make a statement on progress with the mid-term review of the CAP.

Alun Michael: Discussions on the mid-term review of the CAP are continuing and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is vigorously pursuing the UK interest in reform at every opportunity.

Archy Kirkwood: I think that every informed commentator now accepts that some change in the CAP is necessary, but will the Minister acknowledge that current levels of farm income are unsustainably low and that the uncertainty about the time that it will take to obtain a deal on CAP reform is exacerbating the situation? Obviously, the Secretary of State has urgent business in another place today, but it is vital that the Government keep the House advised of the details of the changing aspects of the policy as they evolve during the coming months. Will the Minister assure us that statements will be made as soon as any details are known, and will he also ensure that whenever CAP reform is secured it will be secured as efficiently and expeditiously as possible and that it will be done in a way that gives the UK farming industry a long-term, stable future?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman asks a series of detailed questions. We certainly want to keep the industry and the House informed. The Government believe that reform is necessary and, of course, the low level of farm incomes is a matter of concern. We want to help the UK farming industry to reform so that it has a sustainable future that is more linked to the market than to subsidy. With regard to timing, we have argued that the proposals that we welcomed in general terms do not go far enough or fast enough. Speedy reform, so that the industry knows where it is, would have our support, but we cannot determine the speed at which decisions are made.

Kali Mountford: During the summer, I met olive producers in Greece who told me about the perverse incentive in the system that encouraged them to store many litres of olive oil at only a couple of euros a barrel, which is then sold in this country at a reduced quantity so keeping prices here artificially high. Do not such perverse incentives militate against the proper production of food of the right quality and quantity and lead to higher prices for British consumers?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. She gives an example of perverse incentives that result in higher prices for consumers without particularly helping the sustainability of agriculture in this country or in other parts of Europe. It is important that we deal with these matters, and that reform takes place quickly, in advance of the enlargement of the European Union.

Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister tell us whether there is any truth in the leaked document published in The Guardian, which suggested that the Government had abandoned the issue of the fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy before the extension of the EU, and had said that there would be no changes of significance until at least 2007? As an attempt to explain the seriousness of the situation, will the Minister tell us how much EU and British funding is spent on dumping surplus food, and how much greater that surplus will be when the EU is extended?

Alun Michael: I shall deal simply with the story to which the hon. Gentleman refers. No, it is not an accurate story, and the Secretary of State has written to the newspaper refuting it. There is no truth in it.

Ian Davidson: Does the Minister accept that the successes to date in reforming the common agricultural policy have been nothing short of pathetic? Does he agree that it is about time that we set British farmers free from welfare dependency, and that it would be in the farmers' interests to have a stable future, free from subsidy? Surely scrapping the CAP and letting British farmers stand on their own feet would be in their interests and in the interests of my constituents, who want cheaper food immediately.

Alun Michael: It is interesting that Conservative Members were cheering some parts of my hon. Friend's question. They clearly want subsidies simply to be removed without anything being put in their place, which is an interesting shift in attitude. There are both domestic and international reasons why we must seize the opportunity to achieve a comprehensive shift in the focus of the common agricultural policy. I agree with my hon. Friend that progress has not been swift enough. It is necessary to meet the challenges of enlargement, to underwrite the EU's position in the World Trade Organisation negotiations, and, more importantly, to make our agriculture more competitive and sustainable, and to ensure that our rural economies can flourish despite the challenges ahead. I agree with my hon. Friend.

Patrick Cormack: As the Secretary of State has written to The Guardian about this article, will she come and tell the House exactly what she has said? As she is not here today and we have no explanation for her absence, may I wish her a speedy recovery if she is ill? If she is not, may I ask where she is?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Secretary of State is at the Environment Council, and has written to the Opposition to tell them that she is there looking after British interests. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not care about British interests, but we do, and the Secretary of State does. It would be ludicrous for Members of the House to ask the Secretary of State to come and answer at the Dispatch Box every time a newspaper gets a report wrong.

Departmental Accounts

Mark Field: If she will make a statement on the auditor's qualifications regarding her Department's accounts.

Alun Michael: The Comptroller and Auditor General's report dated 26 February 2002 drew attention to a number of weaknesses in financial systems which have since been addressed. It must be remembered that the report refers to the preparation and audit of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's resource accounts for 2000–01, which took place during a very difficult time for the former Ministry, and subsequently the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The foot and mouth outbreak was at its peak, machinery of government changes were in progress, and many of the Department's staff were redeployed to help deal with the exceptional increase in work loads which arose during that period. Nevertheless, steps have been taken to address the issues raised and, in particular, to embed resource accountancy into systems for budgetary control and financial management.

Mark Field: They say that a week is a long time in politics, but I must confess that, having tabled this question three months ago, I had to rack my brain to work out what it was that I was trying to get to the bottom of. I am not sure that we have got any closer to the answer after the Minister's response. Will he tell the House how the unquantified future costs of foot and mouth disease will be taken account of in future accounts?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is probably referring to some matters related to the outbreak that have led to, for example, discussion about invoices and submissions for payment. They give rise to a contingent liability, which will be disclosed in the published resource account. The precise figures cannot therefore be given until they are finalised.

Flood Defence Schemes

Ian Liddell-Grainger: What guidelines she gives to flood defence schemes in flood plains.

Elliot Morley: DEFRA provides a wide range of guidance to promote the development of economically, technically and environmentally sound and sustainable solutions to flood management and coastal erosion problems. It has been developed over the years, through extensive consultation, and is kept under constant review in the light of research and other policy developments.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am sure that the Under-Secretary knows about the Parrett catchment project in my constituency. The Environment Agency, which is charged with the work of flood defence in my patch, is finding it harder to understand where it is going. The Parrett catchment project is presenting schemes and ideas that step on the Environment Agency's toes. Will the Under-Secretary please ensure that there are clear lines of understanding about who is responsible for what in my constituency? We are beginning to reach the stage when people, especially landowners, are worrying about who is in charge of flood defence schemes in Bridgwater and west Somerset.

Elliot Morley: There is no confusion about who is in charge of flood schemes in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The Parrett catchment strategy, project and study is a good example of bringing together local people and the wide range of different groups with different interests. In the past, those differences led to severe conflict in the area. It has been resolved by bringing people together. All groups and individuals who have been involved in the Parrett catchment initiative deserve credit. Of course, they are entitled to present ideas. Some may not be feasible; some may be long term and others may be relevant to the strategies for improving flood defences in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
	The Environment Agency is considering some of those ideas, but ultimately, it will present the plans, and my Department will scrutinise them to ascertain their environmental impact, the cost-benefit analysis and whether they are technically suitable.

David Heath: I fully support the Parrett catchment project, which, as the Minister said, is doing an extremely good job of bringing together disparate voices in the Somerset levels communities and perhaps showing a way forward for the rest of the country in inland flood defence.
	Earlier, the Under-Secretary referred to the use of land for water retention. I believe that a significant problem remains. Of course, it is possible to use stewardship schemes, but will that constitute a sustainable income for farmers in future? Can the Under-Secretary assure farmers that they will have a sustainable income for sustainable practice on the levels?

Elliot Morley: It should be made clear that a stewardship scheme is not meant to be an alternative subsidy to the CAP. We are trying to move away from production support. The idea of stewardship schemes is recognising that farmers have land management skills and can provide a wide range of benefits, of which water management could be one. The payment reflects the job that they do. It will be geared to that commitment. I have made it clear that I believe that there is scope for that. We have to examine each scheme on its merits because, in some cases, water retention schemes require large areas of land and they may not be the solution to flood control.
	However, the Somerset levels area, which is internationally important, is already in an environmentally sensitive areas scheme and has a range of different support structures, which could be integrated to achieve a range of benefits, including nature conservation, sustainable farming and flood defence. The Parrett catchment scheme and group are playing an important role in that.

Foot and Mouth Disease

George Osborne: What procedure exists for calling on the use of the armed forces in a future outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

Elliot Morley: The armed forces would be alerted immediately if a case of foot and mouth disease was confirmed. The procedure is set out in DEFRA's interim contingency plan, which is published on DEFRA's website along with an electronic mailbox for comments.

George Osborne: I thank the Minister for that answer. When the permanent secretary of DEFRA appeared before the Public Accounts Committee earlier this year, he confirmed that the 29-day delay in bringing out the Army in last year's foot and mouth outbreak was because the Prime Minister's authorisation was not forthcoming. What would the Prime Minister's role be in any future use of the Army in a foot and mouth outbreak? Can he be kept as far away from the process as possible?

Elliot Morley: If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the Anderson report, he would know how crucial the role of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in co-ordinating the total Government response, and how successful that was.
	I recall well, having lived through the foot and mouth epidemic in the days of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the original call for the use of the Army. People did not understand the way in which the Army role would be played. Those calling for the immediate use of the Army thought that it would be used simply to cart animals around, dig holes and undertake the sort of work that plenty of contractors could do. The value of the Army is in logistical control and command, in which it has particular skills. The time to bring it in is when the size of the epidemic justifies that. I should say that the Army was put on alert within days of the outbreak.

Eric Martlew: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to ensure that we do not have to call out the armed forces again, that we do not have to kill hundreds of thousands of animals and that we do not have to pay #3 billion in compensation, is to develop a suitable foot and mouth vaccine and then routinely to vaccinate livestock throughout Europe?

Elliot Morley: I certainly agree that the vaccine will clearly have a greater role to play in the future control of epidemics. Indeed, vaccine technology has advanced from the date of the last outbreak to where we are now. Within the contingency plan we recognise that more work needs to be done on vaccine development. The Anderson report and the Royal Society report recommended that emergency vaccination should be moved up the options agenda. That is exactly what we will do in our future contingency planning.

Bill Wiggin: Can the Minister confirm that the clearest lesson from all the foot and mouth inquiries that have reported has been that the State Veterinary Service needs to be as strong as possible? Will the hon. Gentleman say whether or not the moratorium on hiring state vets has been lifted?

Elliot Morley: Yes, I can confirm that the moratorium has been lifted. The SVS is an important part of our response to any sort of disease control. It provides advice on the prevention of disease as well.

Michael Jack: I am sure that the Minister will be aware that yesterday, at the Select Committee, the author of the Royal Society report, Sir Brian Follett, was openly critical of the Government's efforts in scientific terms to improve animal welfare and to counter diseases that threaten the livestock industry. What will the Minister do to respond to Sir Brian's sage criticisms?

Elliot Morley: We will respond in detail, especially to Sir Brian's report, which was a very good piece of work. We accept the main thrust of the recommendations. I have not seen the details of his comments at the meeting of the Select Committee, but I will make a point of reading them. There is a debate at the Royal Society that will involve Dr. Anderson and myself. I am ensuring that all the members of the Select Committee will receive an invite to attend if they so wish.

David Lidington: One thing that came out clearly from Dr. Ian Anderson's report was the inadequacy of contingency planning in this country compared with the plans put in place in, for example, the Netherlands. The Minister has referred to the Government's interim contingency plan. Can he say now, 12 months after the last confirmed case of foot and mouth disease, and nearly four months after the Anderson report, when he expects to make public the Government's final contingency plan that can be open to public discussion and debate in the House?

Elliot Morley: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Anderson report said that the outbreak that we experienced in this country was unprecedented on any international scale, and that no country's contingency plan was in a position to cope with an outbreak of such a type and on such a scale. In fairness, that should be recognised.
	We recognise that we must re-write our contingency plans. We must rethink many of our approaches given the experience of the epidemic. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we have produced our immediate response, which is the interim strategy, so that we have a strategy in place. We are under way with the definitive strategy and contingency plan, which will be uprated. It will change because that is the nature of it. That involves a great deal of consultation and discussion. That is right and proper because we want to be open and transparent about this. We intend to bring forward the completed conclusions as quickly as possible and to encourage as much involvement and debate as possible.

Animal Infections

Paul Flynn: What recent assessments she has made of the effects of the transport of animals on the spread of infection.

Elliot Morley: The Department has carried out preliminary veterinary and economic assessments of the 20-day standstill rule on animal movements and these are published on the Department's website. A comprehensive cost benefit analysis and risk assessment is now being commissioned, as recommended by the inquiries into the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

Paul Flynn: Is not it true that the main reason why foot and mouth spread more rapidly here than in any other country was that between the time of infection and the time of its detection, infected animals went to at least six marts, possibly coming into contact with 1 million other animals? Is not it right that the Government encourage farmers to use other methods of selling animals, such as through the internet, videos and direct sales, as they did during the foot and mouth crisis, rather than by making journeys to market? Is not it outrageous of the Opposition, who demand better methods to ensure that foot and mouth does not return and spread and that other infections do not come to this country, to oppose the Government on a sensible moderate scheme for the 20-day rule and to support farmers who flagrantly break the rule?

Elliot Morley: I agree. The 20-day rule is an essential part of disease control strategy. It was recommended in the Anderson report and the Royal Society report. We have modified the details of the 20-day rule to take into account the real burdens on farmers in relation to the patterns of their animal movements. However, as I said to the industry, there is no going back to the situation pre-FMD. There will have to be movement controls.
	The Veterinary Laboratories Agency is commissioning an independent risk assessment to consider whether 20 days is appropriate or whether other amendments could be made in the light of representations. However, the rule is essential. The disease was spread by widespread animal movements and, in the case of Northern Ireland, by illegal sheep movements. So we must have tight controls. The Opposition's position on the 20-day rule in last night's debate was irresponsible. They did not recognise the real need that in order to combat disease there has to be action by all concerned. That means the Government, local authorities and agencies, but the livestock industry must play its part as well.

Roger Williams: What answer would the Minister give to farmers in my constituency who think it illogical to have lax controls at airports and sea ports, where few resources are committed to prevent foot and mouth entering the country, while farmers are continually hamstrung in their livestock businesses by a rigid 20-day rule, which makes their business unviable?

Elliot Morley: To be blunt, for some it is just an excuse. Controls at entry are important. We do not discount them and take them very seriously. Indeed, we have just committed an extra #1.5 million for additional checks at points of entry. We are considering all methods to ensure that we can strengthen controls at all borders and in all areas through which meat travels to enter this country. The truth is, however, that whatever we spend and whatever we do, we cannot give a 100 per cent. guarantee that some disease will not get into the country. In that respect, although we recognise that we must play our part in border controls, and we will, the livestock industry must play its part as well. Movement stops are an essential part of that. Those people who are not prepared to accept them put the whole livestock industry at risk. Given the fact that the taxpayer has to pick up the bill, the industry must recognise the need for it to play its part in minimising the problem.

River Avon (Water Extraction)

Robert Key: What agreement she has reached on water abstraction from the upper reaches of the Hampshire Avon; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: In June this year the Environment Agency, English Nature, the Office of Water Services and Wessex Water agreed a programme of measures that will reduce abstractions in three areas, including the upper reaches of the Hampshire Avon.

Robert Key: I am grateful to the Minister, his officials and all the agencies involved for coming up with a compromise solution. However, does he agree that it is not the long-term answer? The problem is replicated around the country. The simple answer is that we are all wasting far too much water. We are transporting it, abstracting it and throwing it away. Will he do all he can to ensure a public education programme to stop wasting water?

Elliot Morley: I can give the hon. Gentleman a bit more reassurance than that. He will probably be aware that it is our intention to introduce a new water Bill that will focus very much on abstraction control and statutory requirements to ensure that water is not wasted and is used properly. I am sure that he will welcome those measures and I look forward to his support when we introduce the Bill.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for next week?

Robin Cook: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 21 October—Remaining stages of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 22 October—Opposition Day [Unallotted Day]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled XCrisis in Affordable Housing". Followed by a debate entitled XCrisis in Nuclear Power and Development of a Sustainable Energy Market". Both debates arise on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
	Wednesday 23 October—Opposition Day [19th Allotted Day]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled XThe Government's Mismanagement of the National Lottery".
	The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
	Thursday 24 October—Continuation of the debate on local government finance formula grant distribution on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Followed by a debate on control of asbestos in the workplace on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 25 October—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
	Monday 28 October—Opposition Day [20th Allotted Day] There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Tuesday 29 October—Debate on motions relating to the Modernisation Committee report on reforming the House of Commons and the Procedure Committee report on parliamentary questions.
	Wednesday 30 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Enterprise Bill.
	Thursday 31 October—Debate on defence in the UK on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 1 November—The House will not be sitting.
	The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business the House will prorogue on Thursday 7 November and the new Session will begin on Wednesday 13 November.
	The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 23 October the second meeting of the Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe will take place to consider the Third and Fourth Report of the United Kingdom representatives to the convention.

Eric Forth: As ever, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the next two weeks. As he is all too aware, as a result of the re-imposition of direct rule in Northern Ireland, a ministerial team of five is now accountable to this House for what they do in Northern Ireland. In the light of that, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared urgently to look at the allocation of time for parliamentary questions, particularly for Northern Ireland, but also for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, given that that Minister has an enormous range of responsibilities that are of direct interest to hon. Members and their constituents? I hope that the Leader of the House agrees that this is an urgent matter. I am sure that it could be agreed through the usual channels very rapidly, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that it is very important that the House exercise its responsibilities with regard to the ministerial team in Northern Ireland given the regrettable change of circumstances.
	While I acknowledge that the Leader of the House has now given further time for the local government finance formula debate—a matter that he, and you, Mr. Speaker, know greatly exercised the House when we saw that debate shrinking—can he give us any guarantees about the length of time now available for that important debate, as there must still be a long list of Members wishing to participate in this important matter? While I do not in any way want to diminish the importance of asbestos as a subject, it might be worth reconsidering whether asbestos really should encroach on the time available to debate the local government finance formula. Is the Leader of the House prepared, even at this stage, to look at the matter again and allow more time for local government even if it is at the expense of an immediate debate on asbestos?
	On 29 October, we are to have a debate on the so-called modernisation of the House. Sadly, as the Leader of the House knows, because he chairs the Modernisation Committee, this is not a matter that has been agreed by all parties, as used to be the case in the past. I understand that he is presenting a number of proposals that have not been agreed to. Is it too late, even at this stage, for further discussions? When will we see the wording of proposals arising from very controversial suggestions by the right hon. Gentleman's Committee? Will the right hon. Gentleman at the very least guarantee that when we have a debate there will be not just ample time for it but, equally important, an opportunity for votes to take place on matters that remain controversial?
	May I appeal, even now, to the Leader of the House? We are very keen to discuss topical questions here, as their lordships are already able to do in the other place. Indeed, I understand that their opportunities are to be extended even further—opportunities that we have never had.
	I should like more agreement to be reached than has been the case hitherto. Is it too late? When will we see the right hon. Gentleman's proposals?

Robin Cook: Let me first say what a relief it is to see the architect of the AS-level still in his place. I will not disguise that from him, given the prominent part he played yesterday in the trouncing of his leader—

Eric Forth: I did not say a word.

Robin Cook: The right hon. Gentleman did not need to say a word. He played a prominent part nevertheless. There was concern on these Benches about his welfare overnight; we are delighted that he did not wake up to find that his appointment was Xnot worth the paper on which it was written."
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about Northern Ireland. I congratulate my two colleagues who have been appointed to the Northern Ireland team: I am sure they will pursue their task with great diligence. We will of course look at ways of ensuring that the House can be kept fully aware of decisions they make, and that they are held accountable.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised two questions about the questions rota, suggesting that more time should be allowed for questions on Northern Ireland and to the Deputy Prime Minister. I have to say that the time is finite. I am happy to look at ways of providing more time, but I need to hear proposals for less time to be allowed to someone else. Allowing more time for some matters means allowing less for others, and I assume that the right hon. Gentleman would not like time to be taken from the time allowed for the Leader of the House to answer questions. We are happy to consider the suggestion, but these are difficult issues and I have to strike a balance between the different Departments whose representatives must give answers to the House.
	I am pleased that we have found additional time for the debate on the formula for local government. The House will recall that it was raised with me during business questions in July, and that I took the initiative by saying that there must be a debate. I regret the fact that Tuesday's debate shrank, although I do not regret the fact that we heard three very important statements which I think we all agree that we had to hear. We have acted to provide for a further debate on the Floor of the House. We will ensure that the time is protected, and that at least three full hours will be allowed.

Eric Forth: Three hours?

Robin Cook: Three hours on top of the hour that has already been provided amounts to a substantial wodge of time.
	The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we drop the asbestos debate. I would not want him to get into any more trouble than he is in already with his leader, and I should perhaps draw his attention to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition wrote to us requesting a debate on asbestos on the Floor of the House. He may wish to consult with the Leader of the Opposition about the withdrawal of that letter, but I personally advise him to keep quiet about the matter.
	It is, of course, never too late for further discussions about modernisation. I immensely enjoy the discussions I currently have during every hour of my working day about the modernisation proposals; but there comes a time when it is necessary to reach a decision. This matter has been before the House for nearly a year, and I think it is time for a decision. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that when we decide on, in particular, sitting hours, there will be a free vote for the Opposition as well as for us.

Paul Tyler: May I suggest that a debate on the funding of democracy would offer the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) another chance to give us the opportunity of hearing his forthright views? There seems to be a curious amount of amnesia on the Conservative Benches in relation to state funding. It appears to have escaped Conservative Members' notice that the Conservative party has received #20 million from the taxpayer since its defeat in 1997.
	If we are to preserve and enhance the reputation of politics, Parliament and Government, is it not extremely important for us to face up to the issue of state funding of democracy? Has the Leader of the House had a chance to see the IPPR report, which I understand the chairman of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), has already endorsed? Is it not urgent that we look at this? We surely cannot wait for the Electoral Commission to complete its work on this, which I understand may take 12 to 18 months. Does the Leader of the House recognise that there is a widespread perception that politics is being grossly influenced by the way in which large donors of various sorts seek to gain influence and access? In particular, will he look at the report in today's Financial Times, the headline of which is
	XTory donor 'urged Duncan Smith to ditch chairman'",
	as a clear example of a way in which this can cause great concern and suspicion among the electorate? Can he be sure that no donor will try to ensure the departure of the Conservative spokesman because his performance is always so enjoyable in the House?

Robin Cook: On the funding of political parties, I understand the anxieties to make progress, but it would be valuable for us to have the report of the Electoral Commission. After all, the House appointed the Electoral Commission to advise us on such matters. It will have important weight and authority in its contribution to the debate. I saw the report from IPPR and will study it with care. I also heard the director of IPPR being interviewed on the radio, in which he made the telling observation that the first Prime Minister ever elected with help from state funding was Lady Thatcher who benefited from Short money while in opposition, as indeed the Conservative party rightly and properly does today. That money is there to make sure our parliamentary system works better. Since that party already receives state funding I wish that it would adopt a rather more open approach to the debate on other parties.
	I saw the article in the Financial Times. I am in no position to verify it since, sadly, I was not invited to attend the meeting between the Tory donor and the leader of the Tory party. I hope I carry with me all members of the shadow Cabinet when I say that if any Tory donor should suggest to the leader that he sack any of them, the appropriate course is to show him the door.

Dennis Skinner: Does The Leader of the House share my view that undemocratic quangos are capable of undermining Government policy? For example, although North Derbyshire tertiary college was due to be closed or have its name changed, the jobs were to remain according to a tin-pot undemocratic quango called the Derbyshire learning and skills council. That promise has not been kept. As a result negotiations are already under way about sending people down the road on to the dole queue. It is high time that the Minister responsible for further education dealt with this matter to make sure that promises made by that tin-pot quango are kept.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend makes his comments in his characteristic trenchant way and they will be heard vigorously in Derbyshire as they have been heard here. I am not in a position to respond in detail to the particular points that he raised, but I shall make sure that the Minister at the Department for Education and Skills has them drawn to his attention.

Andrew Mitchell: May I ask the Leader of the House—as someone who is trenchant in his defence of the rights of Members of Parliament vis-a-vis the Executive, and someone with a modernising agenda—to encourage Ministers to respond far more promptly to letters of inquiry from Members of the House of Commons? In early July I wrote to Health Ministers about a most important public health matter in Sutton Coldfield and this morning, more than three months later, I had a response. I hope that the Leader of the House will bear in mind that a three-month delay is far too long and that civil servants and Ministers must ratchet up their agenda the importance of responding promptly to Members of Parliament when they raise important issues with them.

Robin Cook: Of course, as Leader of the House I can only concur with the general sentiment that Members should have a reply to a parliamentary question or letter as quickly as possible. However, I invite the House to bear in mind the real pressures, particularly on the Department of Health. Questions to the Department of Health, and indeed many other Departments, have increased by about 50 per cent. in recent times. I know that the Department of Health is increasing staff resources to deal with the problem. We shall certainly endeavour to make sure we give as early advice as we can, but as mature members of the political community we must recognise the real pressures involved.

Tam Dalyell: If the matter is not fully cleared up this afternoon by the Defence Secretary, could there be a statement next week on the Congressional Budget Office report, which purports to say that Britain has committed 10,000 troops and #5 billion to a war against Iraq? Specifically, the CBO assumes that
	Xtwo-thirds of a British air wing would be part of the Heavy Ground force, as well as British naval contingent of 21 ships, as in Desert Storm."
	The CBO's estimates of the costs
	Xincorporate the assumption that the United States will provide limited logistical support".
	There ought at least to be comment on that, most properly from the Foreign Office or the Prime Minister.

Robin Cook: I think I can help my hon. Friend to clear up the point now. First, there is no such commitment by the British Government. Secondly, the paper from which he quotes—as he has fairly indicated—is a paper not from the American Government but from the Congressional Budget Office. To be fair to the Congressional Budget Office, it makes it perfectly plain that these are its assumptions and not British Government commitments.

Andrew MacKay: May I return to Northern Ireland? Quite rightly, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland used the first possible opportunity to make a statement to the House on Tuesday about the suspension of the devolved institutions. It is clear that, this time, we could be in for a long haul, because previously there have not been two additional Ministers appointed. In the circumstances, may we have a guarantee from the Leader of the House that there will be a full debate on the crisis in Northern Ireland before the House rises?

Robin Cook: May I respond first to the right hon. Gentleman's last point, because I anticipate that he may be the first of a number today to raise it? Time between now and the date of prorogation that I have announced—7 November—is very tight. It is extremely important that we fulfil the commitments that we have, which we willingly accept, to meet the requirements of the Standing Orders for Opposition days, of which there are a number outstanding. We have four Bills, to which there will be Lords amendments, before we rise. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman, and to anyone else thinking of asking the question, that there is no time for additional debate between now and prorogation.
	On the general point that the right hon. Gentleman raises, we are fully seized of the gravity and importance of this development. I have no doubt that, over a period of time, the House will return to the question of Northern Ireland; whether in debate or in statements remains to be seen. Certainly the House will be right to expect to be fully involved. In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he has done everything possible to keep the House informed.

Tom Watson: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the role and activities of IPPR? In the aftermath of its report proposing a cap on donations to political parties, IPPR makes no comment on its own uncapped donations from the corporate sector.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend makes a robust point and I should be surprised if a letter from the IPPR were not winging its way towards him by tomorrow. I can only say to him that there are aspects of the report that do not immediately commend themselves to the Government or, I suspect, to any other party in this Chamber.

Roy Beggs: The discovery of a Republican spy ring at Stormont—in the wake of the raid on Castlereagh police station and the arrest of suspects in Colombia—in addition to the ongoing violence on the streets of Northern Ireland has produced a huge decrease in support for the Belfast agreement. This was confirmed this morning in a BBC report in which a poll indicated that only 56 per cent. of people now support the Belfast agreement, as opposed to over 70 per cent. in 1998. Further to the request of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), could I appeal to the Leader of the House for an urgent debate in Government time on the circumstances that made untenable the continuance of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Sinn Fein/IRA Ministers within that Assembly?

Robin Cook: I fully understand the importance of the developments to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Indeed, in his statement on Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland stressed the fact that events at Castlereagh and in Colombia had contributed to the decline in confidence in the peace process and the structures for Government in Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend said in his statement, the time has come when those who are participating in the peace process must decide whether they are committing themselves wholly to that track. If the peace process is to succeed, paramilitaries on both sides must recognise that the case for violence and for trying to resolve these issues through violence is over, and that now is the time for all to commit themselves to the peace process, and solely to the peace process.

Shona McIsaac: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday a cross-party group of Members of Parliament presented a petition at Downing street calling for tougher regulation on fireworks? We understand that the Government have made announcements this week on bringing in new regulations, which we welcome. Would it be possible, however, given the sheer volume of people who signed the petition, for a Minister to come to the House to detail the new measures that the Government wish to introduce to deal with antisocial behaviour connected with fireworks?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue that is about to become very topical. There can be no Member of the House who has not, at some time or other, seen a constituent who has suffered injury from fireworks. My hon. Friend is correct that the Government have made proposals for controlling fireworks that are most prone to abuse or to cause injury. Those measures will, I believe, take effect from next year, and there will be opportunities for the House to consider them as the Government bring forward measures to implement them. In the mean time, I am sure that all hon. Members will use the press in their constituencies to consider how to provide the publicity to ensure that those handling fireworks recognise that they are potentially very dangerous explosives that must be handled with care, responsibility and judgment.

Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the courtesy of the House being informed if a Secretary of State cannot be here to answer questions is observed in the future, as it was not observed today? Will the Leader of the House also please reconsider the Modernisation Committee debate on 29 October? It is not essential that that issue be debated on that day; it is essential that Northern Ireland be debated very soon.

Robin Cook: We have to make our own judgments as to what is the best allocation of time, and I think that the House will want to address a number of modernisation issues. As a matter of fact, it is essential that we have a debate on modernisation before proroguing, otherwise the House will be sitting until 10 o'clock on Thursdays in the next Session, because that order is sessional and must be addressed. There are reasons of necessity why we have to have a debate before the House rises.
	On the hon. Gentleman's other point, I am advised that those on the Opposition Front Bench were informed that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would be absent. In fairness to my right hon. Friend, she is attending the Environment Council in Europe, which has very important business relating to this country. If she were absent from that meeting, I suspect that she would be criticised by the House for coming here rather than going to Brussels.

Keith Vaz: The Leader of the House is aware that this week the Irish people will be voting in a referendum on the Nice treaty. Although not wishing to interfere in that process, many of us hope that they will vote yes. Bearing in mind the interest of the Leader of the House in the enlargement process in his work as Foreign Secretary and its importance to the rest of Europe, could time be set aside for a debate next week, or at least before the House rises, so that we can debate how to champion the cause even further?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend tosses me what I think is a firework that I must handle with care and responsibility. As he rightly says, the Irish public would quite properly resent any outside interference in their process. On enlargement, however, I have no difficulty in saying to my hon. Friend that the Government wholeheartedly support the enlargement process and have been one of the champions arguing for enlargement and the access of the countries in central and eastern Europe.
	I think that we in the European Union are inclined to underrate the extent to which the possibility of membership of the European Union has helped those countries transform their economy and alleviated some of the longstanding ethnic tensions that they have realised they have to put behind them as a condition of membership. These are welcome developments. Given the painful decisions that those countries have taken, it remains incumbent on us to ensure that those decisions are rewarded with membership.

David Cameron: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and, in particular, the delays in providing guidance? Is he aware that there is a problem with the rationing of photodynamic therapy for patients suffering from wet age-related macular degeneration, or AMD? My constituent, Jack Tolley, of Bladon, is going progressively blind. His general practitioner has recommended him for treatment, but the Oxford eye hospital says that it cannot carry it out because the funding from his own primary care trust is not there. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is particularly iniquitous because patients in Reading are funded for that treatment at the Oxford eye hospital. He may like to know that the North East Oxfordshire NHS PCT has said that because
	Xresources per capita . . . are the lowest or next to lowest in the country. For this reason we need to make invidious decisions about treatment priorities which are due to inadequate resources."
	Could we have an urgent debate and early guidance from NICE so that people who are going progressively blind do not have to wait for their treatment?

Robin Cook: I am aware of the controversy to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Plainly, the sooner it is resolved the better, from everyone's point of view. I have two general observations. First, we set up NICE precisely because it is surely right that it should be the scientific and the medical experts, with some independent assessment, who come to a judgment. These are not matters that we are qualified to judge and they are not suitable to be resolved on the Floor of the House. Secondly, I hear the hon. Gentleman's complaints about poor funding. Of course, it is the Government's understanding that we have to make further progress in raising funding within the national health service. We have carried through a massive increase in funding since we inherited the record of the previous Conservative Government. At the Conservative party conference, the Conservative leadership said that it was not committed to matching our increases in health spending. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can support his leadership in refusing to match our spending and at the same time complain that we are not spending enough.

Andy Burnham: Will the Leader of the House consider timetabling at the earliest opportunity a debate on the future of United Kingdom manufacturing? He may feel a sense of deja-vu, but there have been profound changes within our industrial base, and Parliament is in danger of failing to respond to those changes. In the past year, there have been forced large-scale redundancies in Leigh and 1,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost, the latest due to the closure of the Bentwood textiles factory, which has led to the loss of more than 300 skilled jobs. That raises real issues about the future of the UK textile industry and whether the European Union tax regime is working in our national interests. There is real concern out there about both the ease with which companies can seemingly relocate away from the UK and the quality of the redundancy packages offered to people when such relocations occur. I urge my right hon. Friend to give hon. Members the opportunity to air those concerns on the Floor of the House at the earliest opportunity.

Robin Cook: I am distressed to hear of the experience that my hon. Friend describes in his constituency and I fully understand that the matters that he has raised must be of grave concern to his constituents. I am aware of the interest on both sides of the House in a discussion of manufacturing. It is a matter that has been aired before. I draw attention to the fact that we are rapidly approaching six full days' debate on the Queen's Speech, which traditionally provides an opportunity to discuss industry and the economy. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members may wish to consider whether these are matters that could be pursued in that context.

Richard Younger-Ross: Would the Leader of the House make a statement prior to the modernisation debate on the possible impact of the modernisation on the working hours and income of the staff of the House and the police? He may be aware that it is feared that those staff may well end up worse off after that modernisation process.

Robin Cook: If there are concerns on income, that is a matter that can be pursued through the usual negotiating channels, which are well developed within the House of Commons. I am sure that the House of Commons Commission will be willing to consider any bona fide and genuine concerns that there might be—I say that as a member of the Commission. However, I am not immediately aware that there would be a significant impact on the hours of the staff. If he is referring to the Modernisation Committee's report, it is true that we make a vigorous case for thinking that the House would be wise to start earlier in the day than at present and that that would have a consequence for when we conclude our business at the end of the day. We do not go so far as the Opposition, who suggested that we should sit from 9 am and stop at 5 pm, but we are suggesting 11.30 am until 7 pm.
	We also recommended that, because a number of hon. Members will wish to continue working on the premises, catering and other facilities such as the Library should remain open. so I would not apprehend any immediate and sharp reduction in hours.

Alan Simpson: I return to the issue raised by the Father of the House during business questions. My point relates to the article by Oonagh Blackman in today's edition of The Mirror. We might want to take issue with the basis on which the US Congressional Budget Office speculated on the costs of a war against Iraq. The following statement from its report ought to cause this House real concern:
	XOnly the British have thus far indicated their intention to contribute troops."
	We have had a succession of statements, from the Prime Minister and other Ministers, saying that the UK has not made any such commitment. Either the US Congress is being misled, or information is being withheld from this House. May we ask the Prime Minister to make it clear to this House whether there is any grounds at all for the certainty with which this commitment of UK troops is referred to in the report to the US Congress?

Robin Cook: There is no commitment made, and can be no commitment made, because no decision has yet been reached. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly said to the House—I fully support him in this policy objective—it is the objective of British foreign policy to make sure that it is progressed through the United Nations. At the moment, there are discussions within the United Nations on what resolution might be approved, and I think it may well be possible that those discussions will result in a resolution. At the moment, no decision is required of us, and no commitment has been made by us. Military action is not imminent; nor is it inevitable. I very much hope that, at the end of the day, we will succeed through the United Nations process of satisfactorily disarming Saddam Hussein and removing his ambition for weapons of mass destruction. However, we also need him to heed the UN obligations that he has previously had put upon him, and any fresh UN resolution that is adopted.

James Clappison: Will the Leader of the House keep an open mind as to the allocation of time for debating local government funding, given the concerns expressed by Members, the interests of their constituents, the scale of the proposed changes to funding, the effect on local services, and the interests of those such as the chairman of the Hertfordshire police authority, who wrote to Ministers and MPs saying that, in due course, changes in funding will result in the loss of 300 police officers in Hertfordshire? These are very big changes. Can we find sufficient time, so that all these anxieties can be heard?

Robin Cook: Yes, although I am aware that my right hon. Friend has repeatedly stressed to the House that no local authority will be worse off. Of course, there is room for debate as to who is best off in terms of the increased amounts. Having said that, I admit to the House that I see no realistic possibility that I can provide satisfactory time on the Floor for every Member who wishes to make a contribution, through a speech, to this issue. It is simply not possible to reconcile that with the finite character of time. I have twice tried to provide generous time for this debate. On Tuesday, that opportunity was waylaid by the need for statements; it will not be so waylaid next Thursday, when a second opportunity will arise. I believe that, in all fairness, we have tried hard to provide adequate opportunity for the House to ventilate this subject.

Peter Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that—despite the impression given by the shadow Leader of the House—the Modernisation Committee has done everything possible in the past year to try to reach a consensus? Is it not true that some of his friends on the Labour Benches wanted to go much further in respect of matters such as the modest overspill proposal? People such as me believe that we should have a five-year Parliament, with all legislation being introduced in a sensible, phased way over that period. That would ensure a better programme, better scrutiny and better legislation.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend has played a distinguished part in the Select Committee. He is absolutely right—we have sought whenever we can to achieve consensus. All members of the Committee will accept that I have made real efforts to get as many members on board as possible. There are one or two areas on which we disagree—that is not surprising—but we have achieved substantial consensus on the way forward.
	On the issue of carry-over to which my hon. Friend refers, I stress that I do not see it as related in any way to increasing the volume of legislation before the House; I see it as necessary to make sure that the House can do a proper job of scrutiny. The real problem in scrutinising Government legislation is finding enough time in which to do it. If we want more time to do it, we must have a longer time-horizon. That is the value of carry-over to the House, and it is for the House's sake that we should adopt it when we meet on 29 October.

Sydney Chapman: The Leader of the House will know that about six of his ministerial colleague, including the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, attended the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg at the end of August. He will further know that that international conference debated and discussed some of the most vital issues affecting the future of our globe. Surely the House should have an opportunity to discuss these important matters. Bearing in mind the fair point that he made about the pressure on business between now and Prorogation, will he assure us that the matter will be debated on the Floor of the House, if not before then immediately after the beginning of the new Session?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman is realistic in understanding that we cannot debate the matter before prorogation, but I assure him that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is keen for the House to have an opportunity to question her and discuss the matter, and that the issue of a statement was contemplated. The House will always be faced with the problem of catching up after three months in which it has not been sitting. Indeed, we saw that on Monday when we had three statements—[Hon. Members: XTuesday."] Sorry, Tuesday. Those statements could not be moved and necessarily took precedence over any other statement. I would argue that that is a very strong case for the House coming back in September instead of the system whereby we do not meet for three months. Had we come back in September, I am absolutely sure that there would have been a statement on Johannesburg.

Kevin Brennan: Would the Leader of the House, in his mission for modernisation, consider investigating the modernisation of the television facilities available in the House to allow hon. Members to receive digital television channels, especially those such as BBC2 Wales or BBC Scotland, which will allow us to monitor the media in our nations and regions? Would that not have the additional merit of allowing people—such as those hon. Members who were lucky enough to be in the Wales Office last night—to watch some top-quality international football?

Robin Cook: One of the advantages that I have as United Kingdom Leader of the House is the ability to support whichever team is doing best, and I congratulate the Welsh team on its success. I shall convey to the House authorities my hon. Friend's comments in relation to television services.

Pete Wishart: First, will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be a Government statement on the Government's response to the Anderson inquiry on 5 November, as leaked today to Plaid Cymru? Secondly, he is no doubt aware of a little local difficulty concerning the proposed change of membership of the Committee of Selection. He is aware that this is due to the increasing frustration felt in the minority parties about lack of access to Committees and institutions of the House. Must we continue to oppose that as private business, or will we be given an early opportunity to debate our grievances about the treatment of minority parties at the hands of the House?

Robin Cook: I am very much aware of the grievance of the minority parties on the question of appointments to Committees. The hon. Gentleman and I have corresponded on the matter on several occasions, and I will continue to look for a solution to it. There will be plenty of procedural opportunities for him to make his point.
	On the Anderson report, the Government will, of course, respond to it, and that response will be shared with the House. It is unusual, however, for the Government to respond as soon as the leak is out and before the report has been published.

Alice Mahon: May I return to the story in the The Mirror about the war bill? Although I welcome the Leader of the House's positive comments on the United Nations route, I must point out the importance of this issue to the House. If the document concerned says that President Bush has been guaranteed that Britain will send troops to fight a United States-led war and makes other explicit statements to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) referred—in addition, the Congressional Budget Office report estimates that the cost to this country might be #5 billion—it is imperative that the House has the opportunity to question a Minister or the Prime Minister on the matter. We have been told time and again that no decisions have been taken, but the Americans appear to think that they have been. Five billion pounds is a lot of money, and we have outstanding public sector pay claims, such as those from the firefighters and the nurses, and I am sure that that money would cover much of their claims.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises an issue that has been of deep concern to a number of my hon. Friends. I can only repeat that the Congressional Budget Office is, of course, entitled to come to what assumptions it wishes, but those are its assumptions. They do not reflect any commitment that has been given by Her Majesty's Government, nor could we make any commitment until we take a decision, and no decision has been taken on action. I very much hope that it will be possible for us to succeed in getting the UN to pressurise Iraq successfully to accept its obligations to the UN. Every sane Member would accept that that is the best way forward, but it depends on co-operation from Iraq.
	As to opportunities to debate the issue further, I draw the House's attention to the fact that there will be a debate on defence today and that there will be another in two weeks' time. There are plenty of opportunities for Members who wish to do so to press the Ministers responsible for defence for clarity on this matter. However, I think that those Ministers will confirm what I have said to the House.

George Osborne: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the private finance initiative so that the House can have the benefit of the lively debate that we saw at the Labour party conference? Perhaps the Government could explain the motion that was so enthusiastically adopted by that conference. If he finds time for that debate, will he arrange for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to open it, so that we can hear the Government's argument at its best and hear a repeat of the bravura performance at Blackpool?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman's point was rather laboured. I am always happy to listen to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury or, indeed, to any member of the Treasury team. They will also be interested to hear from the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues if they wish to nominate which hospital or school projects in their constituencies they would like to have halted because they do not approve of the PFI process.

Vernon Coaker: I welcome the modernisation proposals that my right hon. Friend published over the summer, but will he tell the House what progress has been made with respect to the use of Westminster Hall for debates on issues that cut across Government Departments and that a range of Ministers could attend? Would not a good start be a debate on youth policy to which many Ministers could be brought together to answer questions on that important topic?

Robin Cook: I aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the subject. Indeed, he wrote to me some time ago, and I am pleased that we have been able to respond to the demand from Members—and from Ministers responsible for this issue—by proposing that there should be an opportunity for cross-cutting questions on youth policy, embracing the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills. As more work is done in Whitehall on a cross-departmental basis, it is right that the House should adapt its procedures so that we can also maintain cross-cutting scrutiny. I believe that our proposal for change in Westminster Hall will be helpful. We will work with the Chairman of Ways and Means to try to find an early opportunity in the new Session when we can put into effect that proposal for questions on youth policy in Westminster Hall.

Vincent Cable: Is it not unsatisfactory that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have yet been to the House to explain or justify their decision to put more than #600 million of public funds at risk in the form of emergency loans and guarantees to the virtually bankrupt private nuclear energy company, British Energy? Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have such a statement as soon as possible?

Robin Cook: As I understand it, we will have a full opportunity to explore these issues next week. Once again I say that, if we had regular September sittings, such questions would not arise, because I am sure that we would have had a statement at the time. The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises will be debated next week, but it surely could not be responsible of any Government to allow a major nuclear energy installation to face the possibility of insolvency, with all the consequences that would have for the safety and security of our constituents. In those circumstances, it surely was right for the Government to act to make sure that nuclear safety is maintained.

Llew Smith: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on compensation for the victims—the soldiers and now the families—of the atomic tests in the Pacific in 1950? I am sure that he is aware that the Prime Minister supported a private Member's Bill in 1990 demanding compensation for the victims of those tests. As we are now in government, I am sure that the Government will be eager to ensure that justice is done for those victims.

Robin Cook: The Government are always eager to make sure that justice is done, and my hon. Friend may want to put those points to my colleagues from the Ministry of Defence who will be taking part in the subsequent debate.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order after the statement.

Housing Benefit

Andrew Smith: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the reform of housing benefit.
	I am today publishing a prospectus, XBuilding Choice and Responsibility: a radical agenda for Housing Benefit ", which sets out our proposals. The system that we have inherited is complicated, costly to administer, vulnerable to fraud and difficult for tenants to understand. For too many people, it means endless form filling and delays in payment. It is often a factor that prevents people from making the move from welfare into work.
	Currently, we expect local authorities to reassess 4 million individual claims every year, whether they have changed or not. Nearly 2 million pensioners whose circumstances rarely change are expected to fill in a 40-page form every year just to renew their housing benefit. Local councils are compelled to deal with a bewildering array of overlapping rules for tenants in the private rented sector. That cannot be right. We need a system that puts real choice and responsibility in tenants' hands—one that supports work and cuts the risk of fraud. The Work and Pensions Committee and the Audit Commission have highlighted the need for change, as have many outside observers. It is time to get on with this reform.
	It is clear that we need to break fundamentally with the past and bring in a fairer, simpler system, so we propose to introduce standard local housing allowances for private rentals, initially in 10 pathfinder areas. The allowance will be flat rate and based on area and family size. The amount paid will, as now, be income related. It will be paid directly to the tenant, except where vulnerable tenants are unable to manage their own affairs or where substantial arrears have built up. No one will be worse off when those pathfinder schemes start next year. In fact, tenants who find a suitable home with a rent less than the standard allowance will be able to keep the difference. That puts the decision and responsibility in their hands.
	The reforms will build on the steps that we have already taken to improve administration and to begin the process of restructuring rents in the social rented sector. It is our intention to roll out reforms nationally and to develop ways of bringing in the social housing sector. That will be carefully informed by our assessment of the initial pathfinder areas, where we will work closely with local authorities, landlords, tenants associations and advice agencies.
	Consultation will be led by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), for whose work on these proposals I am very grateful. The reformed system will offer greater simplicity and certainty for tenants and landlords, extend tenant choice and responsibility, dramatically cut delays and support our wider aims of improving public services, tackling poverty and extending opportunity.
	As they are simpler, standard local allowances will speed up the claims process, which will reduce the uncertainties that people face as their circumstances change and will make trying a job a more attractive option. Furthermore, later this month, throughout the country we will start to introduce a rapid reclaim facility for when a job does not work out. We will also remove the need to make a new claim when someone gets a job. Housing benefit will simply run on until the in-work rate is calculated.
	We are taking other steps to improve the service for everyone. Jobcentre Plus clients will be able to make claims over the telephone, and from next autumn pensioners will no longer have to fill out a new housing benefit form every year.
	We are committed to working in partnership with councils to improve performance through clearer standards and increased accountability. We are already seeing progress. In March, we set out clear standards for housing benefit performance. We will build on that by providing #200 million for training and modernisation over the next three years to help councils that are committed to improvement. We shall also challenge poor performance and stand ready to intervene where local authorities fail to deliver an acceptable service.
	It is also crucial that we crack down on fraud. This package of reforms will do just that. First, it will simplify the housing benefit system in order to free resources for the fight against fraud. Secondly, the perverse incentive for corrupt landlords to collude with tenants to set high rents will be removed. Thirdly, we are providing #60 million to support the tighter checking of claims, stopping fraud getting into the system in the first place.
	The Government are committed to taking action against rogue landlords who abuse the system. As soon as parliamentary time allows, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister intends to legislate to tackle the minority of rogue landlords and boost our drive against poor conditions. It is also important that tenants understand their obligations to behave in a neighbourly way.
	As we made clear following the introduction of the private Member's Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the Government are considering housing benefit sanctions as part of our wider strategy to tackle nuisance neighbours through stricter tenancy agreements and improved antisocial behaviour orders. By making tenants responsible for payment of their rent, the reforms that I am announcing today reinforce the link between rights and responsibilities.
	In conclusion, reform of housing benefit is essential. The proposals combine simplicity and streamlined procedures with greater individual choice. They offer a better deal for tenants, landlords and local authorities. We must now work together to make them a success.

David Willetts: Housing benefit does indeed need to be reformed. Successive Governments have promised to do it but none has really succeeded. The dilemma is whether to pay benefit for actual rent or make a standard payment of a rent allowance. Sixty years ago, Beveridge devoted an entire chapter of his great report to precisely that dilemma and revealingly entitled it XThe problem of rent". He concluded that it would be better to make a standard payment, provided that rents in different areas had already moved close together. I think that he was right, and that is clearly the basis on which the Secretary of State is proceeding.
	Let me ask the Secretary of State about the scale of his proposals. This Government have all too often proposed welfare reform, only to fail to deliver. About 4 million people are claiming housing benefit. How many claimants does he expect to receive housing benefit in the new way, after he has implemented the pathfinders? Is he committing himself now to proceeding straightforwardly to a complete national scheme after the pathfinders have been implemented, or is there to be a small number of pilots, after which the evidence will be scrutinised before a decision is made on what to do next? We need to know whether the gap between hype and reality that has so frequently dogged the Government's commitment to welfare reform is going to be in evidence yet again on housing benefit.
	I should like also to ask the Secretary of State about the detail of the pathfinders. Will he assure the House that they will cover different parts of England? As he well knows, what might work in low-rent areas of the north may not necessarily work in parts of the south-east, where rents are much higher. Is there a danger of going back to the old days of two different housing benefit regimes—one for social housing tenants and another for private tenancies? His proposals currently appear to cover only private tenancies. Will he try to drive down rents in the private sector while those in the social housing sector continue to increase? How will he fix rents for existing tenants, especially if he says that none of them is to lose?
	Perhaps most important of all, what about the serious problem of people trapped in dependency because of the incredibly high rates of combined withdrawal of housing benefit and income support that they now face? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at those very high tapers—sometimes over 90 per cent.—which trap thousands of people in benefits, or will the tapers be off-limits?
	The Secretary of State went on to speak about the linking of housing benefit to behaviour. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must salute the imagination of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the author of that idea. We approached it in a constructive spirit when his private Member's Bill went into Committee—perhaps the Liberal Democrats did not, but my hon. Friends certainly did—and we will approach it in a constructive spirit again. But that was the proposal from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. What has happened to the original proposal that was made by the Prime Minister, which linked child benefit to behaviour? Is that still on the agenda, or has it been dropped? Has the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions come to the House in order to drop an idea proposed by the Prime Minister, and instead to support an idea proposed by the former Minister for Welfare Reform, who was removed from his post? Has the Secretary of State decided that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead is right and the Prime Minister is wrong? We would like him to make that clear.
	While we debate these ideas for the future, there is an immediate crisis in our housing benefit system in many parts of the country, especially in London, where it is close to collapse. Does the Secretary of State accept that there are people who are homeless on the streets, having been evicted from their houses by councils whose own failure to pay housing benefit is the source of the problem? We welcome practical proposals, including those made by him today, to tackle that problem, but the Secretary of State did not refer to one of the reasons why housing benefit administration is close to collapse. Ministers have produced more than 400 housing benefit circulars since the Government took office in 1997 and local authorities simply cannot keep up with them.
	May I take this opportunity to urge the Secretary of State to consider our straightforward and practical proposal simply to change the regulations once or twice a year, so that local authorities do not face a stream of changes? We have also suggested that the Benefits Agency should, in the last resort, take over responsibility for housing benefit from local authorities that are clearly not up to the job. I hope that the Secretary of State will also consider those practical proposals to tackle an immediate crisis.

Andrew Smith: The hon. Gentleman implied that we were the first Government to try to get to grips with the problem since Beveridge. He might have given us some credit for grasping the nettle. I listened in vain throughout his remarks for a basic comment about whether the Conservative party thinks that our proposals are the right direction for reform or the wrong direction. I should have thought that the Opposition would welcome the move towards greater personal responsibility and choice for tenants; the tenants who will benefit from our reforms will certainly do so.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. As I said in my statement, we propose initially to roll out the proposals in 10 pathfinder areas. We wish to extend the approach nationally, but clearly we must learn from the experience of the pathfinders in so doing.
	As regards the number and the proportion of recipients of housing benefits who are affected, there are 4 million claims and about 20 per cent. of those—800,000—are in the private sector. We hope to roll the scheme out to between 5 and 10 per cent. of that case load through the pathfinders, so the hon. Gentleman can see that the number of people affected will be substantial. He asked whether those are pathfinders or pilots. We want to get on with rolling out the scheme.
	In selecting the areas to be the pathfinders, yes, we want to ensure that not only the various regions of England, but areas in Scotland and Wales have the opportunity to try the new approach. The criteria that we will apply in selecting pathfinders is that they include a mix of high-cost, low-cost and medium-cost areas; we want to include substantial rural areas as well as urban areas; we want them to be in different parts of the country, and they need to be areas with a substantial case load of private rentals. We shall approach a number of authorities as soon as we can to see whether they are able to take part.
	With regard to the Government's performance on housing benefit, I cannot help but refer to the utter shambles that we inherited and the Opposition's failure to take responsibility for the awful mess that they bequeathed us. We have invested in tougher action against fraud in the form of the benefit fraud inspectorate, we have sent help teams around the country and we have intervened in a number of local authorities—for example, we have substantially addressed the backlog in Hackney. Moreover, the ombudsman's recent report noted that complaints to him about housing benefit administration were down by a quarter.
	I do not deny that a great deal more needs to be done to improve the efficiency of administration and to crack down on fraud, but our proposals will help us to achieve that end. We are putting resources and investment behind our commitment to efficiency and modernisation. Not only have we allocated #200 million from next year to modernise IT and to train staff, but #60 million has been explicitly dedicated to measures to combat fraud.
	The key point is that these proposals will help. They make the system clearer and more straightforward and they remove the perverse incentive for corrupt landlords to collude with tenants in setting high rents. This is a big step forward towards tenants in the private sector who are dependent on housing benefit having some of the same rights and responsibilities that the rest of us take for granted.

Frank Field: I thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), for the work they have put in behind today's statement, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the courage and determination that he is now showing in reforming housing benefit. Had some of that been shown five years ago, he might have been announcing the completion of the reform rather than its commencement.
	Does my right hon. Friend accept that when his statement is reviewed it will be seen as the abolition of the last vestiges of serfdom in our welfare system, and that instead of directing how claimants spend their money it will give them the freedom to spend it themselves?
	Will my right hon. Friend give us some assurance about how the reform will be rolled out in the pilot areas? Will all claimants in the private sector be brought into the scheme, or will they become part of the scheme only if they wish to move or have to move?

Andrew Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome for the measures. With regard to the timing of their implementation, earlier steps were taken on modernisation and tackling fraud and rent restructuring measures are now under way for the social rented sector, but we are now getting on with these measures as quickly as we can.
	With regard to how the reform will be rolled out in each of the pathfinder areas, our intention is that all private rentals where tenants receive housing benefit will be part of the pathfinder, except, as I said, where people are vulnerable and unable to manage their affairs or where there are substantial rent arrears. Another protection that the House will be interested in is that it makes sense for the initial payment to be made directly to the landlord, but thereafter it will be the responsibility of the tenant.
	I am not sure whether I would describe the measures in exactly the same terms as my right hon. Friend did, as the abolition of serfdom—I would be proud to have played a leading role in such a cause—but they certainly extend rights, responsibilities and opportunities to tenants in the private rented sector that they have been denied in the past and that the rest of us take for granted.

Steve Webb: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for grasping a nettle that his two immediate predecessors signally failed to grasp. It is all the more welcome that he has brought forward the proposals today. The aims that he set out are entirely laudable and many of the proposals, such as pensioners not having to reclaim within five years, are entirely sensible, and we shall welcome and support them. However, I have two fundamental concerns.
	First, a political party recently said that it was proposing to complete the Thatcherite agenda. I had assumed that that was the Conservative party, but I hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to use housing benefit sanctions for antisocial tenants, which sounds good, macho and as though the Government are on the side of the decent against the antisocial, but in practice the consequence will be to move the problem around rather than to deal with it. Would not the money that these measures will cost be better spent on the many schemes around Britain that are working now to tackle the causes of antisocial behaviour? These measures will simply move the problem around when it has already occurred.
	I have some serious concerns about rent restructuring. I get the impression that the Secretary of State lives in a world in which tenants are faced with a wide array of choice properties at decent prices, and that they pick and choose, then haggle to set a decent rent with the landlord. Well, it ain't like that, and I think that, deep down, the right hon. Gentleman knows that. Many tenants are price takers, and have little choice. They have to take what they are offered or they have to lump it. The Department's own research shows that shopping-around incentives have been a complete failure; they simply do not work. Tenants are not free choosers among a range of choice properties. Does the Secretary of State not agree that tenants will be forced to live in the cheap rent, ghetto part of town because they will not be able to afford to live in the decent part?
	If the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is for the standard allowance to be set at the reference rent—effectively, the maximum rent—how will the pilot schemes tell us anything? Half the people will be paying less and have some free money—and will say thank you very much—while the other half will get what they are getting now. So what will the pilots actually teach us? With rents as they are, there is a real danger attached to the flat-rate payments. Rents still vary far too much, and people will be forced to move because their housing benefit does not cover their rent. That will mean children leaving their schools, and people moving away from members of their family who can provide child care. It will also disrupt employment. If the measures do not have the effect of causing people to choose different properties, what is the point of them? If they do, will they not Xghettoise" and distort people's lives?

Andrew Smith: It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are no part of the reformed agenda. That was an hysterically negative response to our radical proposals. I would caution the hon. Gentleman against lecturing me on the world I live in. My home in my constituency is on an estate where people are sick and tired of neighbours from hell making their lives a misery, day in and day out. This Government can take pride in linking rights with responsibilities, and if housing benefit has a part to play in the wider measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, so much the better.
	On the hon. Gentleman's speculation about people being worse off, I said in my statement that no one will be worse off as a consequence of these proposals. Indeed, those whose rent is below the reference rent level will be better off. In resisting these proposals, the hon. Gentleman would condemn those people to the unfairness of having less money for their housing costs, just because they live in a cheap area. There is nothing liberal or democratic in his remarks if he would prefer to leave poor people ensnared in an incomprehensible state bureaucracy, rather than putting some power in their hands. I believe in empowering poor people, and that is what these proposals will do.

Louise Ellman: Will the Secretary of State explain a little more about how his proposals will deal with private landlords who exploit the current system by not maintaining their properties, which, in effect, encourages antisocial behaviour and, as a result, accelerates neighbourhood decline?

Andrew Smith: I share my hon. Friend's commitment to tackling not only rogue landlords but the wider syndrome of degeneration, especially in some of our urban neighbourhoods. As I said, I believe that these proposals make a contribution to tackling those problems because they put more power in the hands of tenants and less in the hands of the bad landlords. They will make the situation clearer for tenants and landlords than it is at present. At the moment, when a tenant is deciding which property to live in, they are effectively shopping in the dark without knowing how much money they have in their purse. Under these proposals, they will know how much money they will be taking to get the best deal. It is right that we should extend to them the opportunity to express a choice in these situations. Of course, there is a much wider agenda here, and, as I said in my statement, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is consulting on wider measures to tackle antisocial landlords. We look forward to those measures being introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Gary Streeter: I welcome the broad thrust of the Secretary of State's proposals and I look forward to reading the detail of the consultation paper. I especially welcome his desire to crack down on both rogue landlords and neighbours from hell. He will understand the healthy scepticism on Conservative Benches about the claim that the Government will introduce fewer bureaucratic measures than their predecessors. If they can achieve that, we would warmly welcome it and wish them well.
	In my experience, many software systems that local authorities use to oversee the housing benefit system often break down and fail to deliver. Will the Secretary of State give guidance and advice to local authorities on the computer systems that they should use to ensure that they deliver the right result and that tenants can interact with them quickly and carefully?

Andrew Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for our proposals. He made an important point: IT software often leaves a great deal to be desired. A working group is examining the matter in partnership with local authorities. The roll-out of the pathfinders and their experience will provide important lessons about the way in which we can ensure that the system works properly and delivers the standards of service that we all expect.
	The system is simpler because it makes poking around every nook and cranny of the assessment of every rent unnecessary. It should therefore be simpler for IT.

Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend referred to overcoming the complexity of claiming housing benefit under the current arrangements. Perhaps he could expand on the way in which the new measures would achieve that. Does not Jobcentre Plus operate as a method of assisting claimants by drawing people together who are seeking both benefits and employment? Will it assist matters to close jobcentres such as that in Eckington in my constituency? My right hon. Friend saved it in the past and may consider the position again. How will people in those circumstances find it easier to gain access to the provisions that we are considering?

Andrew Smith: As I said, the simpler system will be more user friendly and make it easier for people to claim their entitlements. The wider proposals to which I referred involve replacing approximately four forms that people must currently complete with one form. We will enable and encourage making claims by telephone. Jobcentre Plus will be able to handle those claims. As the scheme is rolled out across the country, it will become a genuine one-stop service for those who are seeking work as well as benefits.
	My hon. Friend referred to a specific jobcentre. My ministerial team and I will be pleased to talk to him further about its future.

Archy Kirkwood: The development is welcome from the point of view of the Social Security Committee, as it was. The hurdle of housing benefit prevented people from getting off benefit and into work, and it was one of the biggest items of unfinished business since the Government were elected in 1997. This morning's announcement constitutes a significant step forward, which I welcome.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that hon. Members would be wise to consider the detail carefully because it will make all the difference to whether the proposals are successful and fulfil the aspirations that he set out.
	I want to make two brief points. First, I am slightly disappointed that the public sector has not been used for any of the pilots. I understand that the Labour party made a manifesto commitment to deal with private before public, but I hope that that does not mean that public is off the agenda for the rest of the Parliament. I would have been happier if the pathfinders had included some public sector research.
	Secondly, when the Government introduced pension credit, they sensibly made it clear that the interface between housing benefit and pension credit would prejudice no one. Will the Secretary of State comment on the second phase of the tax credit reform that will be introduced next spring and how it will interface with the proposals that he announced this morning?

Andrew Smith: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome and for the work that his Select Committee does in this important area.
	In response to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I too am keen to be able to include the social sector. Clearly we must have progress on rent restructuring. Given that that is predicated on an element of tenant choice, that too needs to be reflected in the social housing sector if the benefits are to be realised. As we roll out the pathfinders, we shall actively be looking for opportunities to involve the public sector. Far from that sector being off the agenda, it is very much on it in terms of the national roll-out of such reform.
	The hon. Gentleman's second question was about tax credits coming in next April. We shall be examining carefully the interaction between the two factors that he identified, and we are mindful of the work that local authorities have to accomplish next year on housing benefit systems. It is especially important that there is careful consultation with the authorities that we are minded to approach as pathfinders to ensure that they are enthusiastic about taking on the job.

Karen Buck: Beveridge decided not to proceed with fundamental housing benefit reform because of cost differentials in different parts of the country, which of course have increased dramatically over recent years. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the scheme works effectively in high-cost areas such as London? The number of properties in the private rented sector that are available to people on housing benefit has halved in five years. One of my constituents was told that to look for a property while on housing benefit, it would be necessary to go to Dartford, Billericay or Brentwood, 40 miles from central London. The choice agenda is critical.
	Will my right hon. Friend ensure also that poverty is addressed? The shortfalls between the housing benefit that is payable and actual rents in the Greater London area are a major cause of poverty, and in turn drive households into homelessness and into public sector housing. In the application of the policy, will my right hon. Friend advise me how it will increase choice by increasing supply in the private rented sector, how it will reduce poverty and how it will reduce the flow of households, especially families from the private rented sector, into homelessness?

Andrew Smith: I am certainly mindful of the particular problems that affect high-cost areas; indeed, according to outside-London terms, my constituency is a high-cost area. I am sensitive to the particular challenge facing people and authorities in London. That is one of the reasons why we want to ensure that pathfinder areas include a London authority.
	As for poverty, through these proposals no one will be worse off, and a significant proportion of tenants will be better off. There is a wider challenge facing us on housing supply, and that is one of the reasons why the Government have already substantially increased investment in social housing. As a consequence of the spending review, we are accelerating that investment still further.
	I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to keep these matters closely under review and to examine what are the future options to ensure that the problems that she has identified, arising from a diminishing range of properties available to those in housing need in London, are effectively addressed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have time limited main business to protect this afternoon, in which many hon. Members wish to take part. I do not think that I will be able to call every Member who is trying to catch my eye on the statement. Brief questions and brief answers would help.

Andrew Turner: I was struck by the explanation that the Minister gave to the Liberal Democrats, which was that an individual cannot be an intelligent purchaser unless he or she knows how much they have to spend. When the right hon. Gentleman is selecting the pathfinders, will he make particular efforts to cover an area where rents are variable geographically or seasonally? Will he take account of the need to cover effectively those whose incomes vary substantially during the year, such as seasonal workers or those who do not receive all the money that they should through the Child Support Agency?

Andrew Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming my comment. It is not the first time that we have made common cause against the Liberal Democrats.
	We will address the variable geography and incomes to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Rent reference areas try to take account of that and we will work on the basis of existing areas. I agree that there are big issues to consider for the future and that we will have to learn from the pathfinders. I will try to address his concern when we select the pathfinders.

Glenda Jackson: The problem with housing benefit in my constituency, which is an area of high and rising rents and a diminishing number of properties, is not the speed in processing claims—my borough of Camden has two charter marks for excellence in that—but the gap between the level of rent set by the local rent officer and the rent set by the private landlord. What formula will be used to define a standard rent allowance? Many of my constituents who suffer most grievously are single people. How will they be helped?

Andrew Smith: I echo my hon. Friend's comments about the performance of her local authority. As well as castigating those that do poorly, it is important to praise those that make a difficult system work effectively.
	The reference rent will be set on the basis of the present system, disregarding outliers and taking an intermediate level between the highest and lowest rents in the area. By putting the money in the hands of the tenants and, as I said, by removing the perverse incentive for corrupt landlords to collude with tenants in raising rents, it is likely that the reform will exercise some downward pressure on rents. That will help, although I do not want to overemphasise the effect.

Hywel Williams: The statement says that the allowance will be flat rate, based on area and family size. However, we need to address the particular housing costs experienced by people with disabilities, given that those are unrelated to area and family size. That was the subject of an Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), which was given a sympathetic hearing by the Minister.

Andrew Smith: It is very important that the needs of disabled people are properly addressed. The reform will not alter the premiums and the support that they get from the disability living allowance. I shall keep an eye on the operation of pathfinders to ensure that disabled people's needs are properly reflected. There is no need whatever why disabled people should be denied the same choice and opportunity that is available to others. Indeed, they should enjoy it to the full.

Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents, who live in a high-housing cost, high-demand area, that they will continue to get a reasonable supply of private rented accommodation under the system? Many of us are concerned about that. In addition, will he intervene on local authorities that have proved themselves completely incompetent to deliver housing benefit? Islington council, which is run by the Liberal Democrats, has bizarrely signed a continuation contract with a company called ITNET, which over the past five years has proven itself incapable of delivering housing benefit safely and securely to anyone in my borough, so causing immense hardship.

Andrew Smith: Many landlords are also put off by the complexities and delays in the present system. The reform should help those who want to make their properties available.
	We stand ready, however, to intervene. The directions that we have issued have had an effect and are in addition to the measures that we are taking on the help teams and in addition to the extra investment. In the final analysis, if the people who run an authority are incompetent, we can take it off them and get someone else to run it.

Andrew Selous: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that his Department will examine the practice of some local housing authorities that stop the payment of housing benefit while they investigate tenants? That presumes guilt before the investigation is concluded and greatly worries many tenants.
	I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and remind the House that every Conservative and Labour Member supported its proposals in Committee.

Andrew Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for welcoming the reforms. I shall certainly look into the instances that he describes. We take the advice of the benefit fraud inspectorate on these matters and I shall make it my business to get a report from the inspectorate on the issue.

Andrew Bennett: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement in so far as it reforms bureaucracy, but I should like to ask him about the underlying principle. Over the past 20 years, less and less subsidy has gone into building low-cost housing and more and more has gone into the housing benefit system, resulting in bureaucracy and the poverty trap. A large amount of it has gone to unscrupulous landlords. Is it not about time that we put money back into low-cost house building as that would do a great deal to reduce the chronic hardship being suffered by so many people in this country who cannot get decent accommodation?

Andrew Smith: It is not an either/or as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree. We need to increase supply and establish a fair and efficient system for supporting those who cannot afford their rent. The proposals are dedicated specifically to my hon. Friend's second point, and as I said, I think that they will encourage more landlords.
	My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced substantial increases in social housing investment to address the first point that my hon. Friend raised.

Adrian Sanders: Will the proposals reflect differentials in seaside resorts where tenancies are often for six months and where accommodation is at a premium during the summer months, but plentiful during the winter months? How will choice be increased? Will the proposals do anything to help landlords to find tenants who abscond owing rent that they are never able to recover and housing benefit, which those landlords then have to repay to local authorities?

Andrew Smith: On the second point, when arrears build up—eight weeks of arrears is normally the yardstick—we would reinstate direct payments, so there is that measure of safeguard for landlords. Variability of rents in seaside or other areas should be reflected in the way in which the reference rent is calculated. At the moment the proposals do not alter that, but in pathfinder areas those whose present rent is below the reference rent level and in that sense are penalised for living in a cheaper area will get the allowance up to the full reference level and will be better off as a consequence.

David Lepper: May I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and ask my right hon. Friend to say something about how he sees the new measures helping in particular young people under 25 in a high-housing cost area such as mine in Brighton and Hove? Under the current system, many young people are being priced out of the town in which they were born and brought up.

Andrew Smith: It is important that we address the wider questions of housing supply. The Government have already amended the single room assessment basis for housing benefit, which has made some measure of improvement to the situation and we will continue to keep these matters under review.

Neil Gerrard: If we are to move to a system of flat rates, based in some way on current local reference rents, how will we overcome the problem that has already been referred to in high-cost areas such as London of the big and growing gaps which exist between the reference rents and the real level of rents that people are being charged? On the question of choice, as that is what the statement is about, how many landlords, once they know exactly what the standard rate is, are likely to charge less than that figure? Will it not mean that low rents will go up unless we deal with landlords who let properties in poor condition, by refusing to let them into the system?

Andrew Smith: It is very important that decent housing standards are enforced more generally through the legislative protection of those standards and the work of environmental health departments. The reference rents system works by taking a middle point between high and low rents in an area and that should address the relevant problems over time, but as I said in an earlier reply, I acknowledge that there is a particular problem in high-cost areas and we will pay close attention to it in future.

Peter Lilley: I apologise to the Secretary of State for missing the first 60 seconds of his statement. I also apologise in advance lest by saying that I broadly welcome the proposals I undermine support for them.
	The proposals seem to be the logical and foreseen development of the rent reference system that I introduced. Action could not be taken immediately because the possible divergence of rents meant that the cost might be high. What cost does the Secretary of State envisage in extra benefit? Will he also assure us that local authorities will retain the discretion to pay above the standard allowance if that is necessary, for instance to enable an elderly mother to live near her family in what may be high-rent accommodation, but thereby avoiding the need to enter residential accommodation?

Andrew Smith: Obviously the cost will depend partly on the impact of the reforms on rent levels over time, but the extra amount that we anticipate for the pathfinders is around #20 million.
	I can confirm that we do not intend to limit the discretion of local authorities that currently have that discretion, although we expect the basis of payment to come from the tenant except when there is good reason for that not to happen.

Tony McWalter: Is there any scope for giving benefit to some who currently do not receive it, particularly in high-cost areas such as the one I represent? In my area an ex-council house can cost #850 a month, and a two-bedroomed flat in Apsley can cost #1,000 a month. As a result, the disposable incomes of some people such as starter teachers are extremely low. Giving such people housing benefit would increase incentives to work.

Andrew Smith: It is no part of these proposals to extend eligibility for housing benefit. As I said in my statement, benefit will be income-related as it is now. We will of course keep such matters as tapers under review, but the short answer to my hon. Friend's question is no, we do not anticipate including more people as a consequence of the report.

Angela Eagle: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on tackling a complex but crucial area. Does he agree that tackling bad landlords requires work to license them, which I know is being done in another Department? Does he also agree that ensuring that direct payments are made to tenants is crucial to enforcing the rights and responsibilities agenda and empowering tenants? Should that not apply to social housing as well as private tenants?

Andrew Smith: I agree on both counts. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is to present proposals for tackling bad landlords. I am acutely aware of the awful situation facing many low-demand areas, and of the possible scope for effective licensing.
	As for the philosophy underpinning the reform, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is very important for us to put power in the hands of poorer people. That is what the reform will do: such people will have more choice and, as my hon. Friend says, will be able to take more responsibility. As I have said, for the same reasons we should extend that approach to the social housing sector as soon as we can, and I am sure that the benefits will be just as great.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

Points of Order

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, during an exchange on the so-called modernisation proposals, the Leader of the House made a slight error in describing the policy of the official Opposition on sitting hours. May I take this opportunity to put the record straight? We propose that the House sit at 9.30 am on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, suspending sittings for lunch at 1 pm or earlier and commencing the main business at 2 pm. The House would then continue to sit until 7 pm. The distinction is rather important, and I did not want to leave the inadvertent mischaracterisation by the Leader of the House uncorrected.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the House is obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that these matters will be further discussed on 29 October.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you help us with the delays that we are still experiencing in the receipt of written parliamentary answers to questions? Yesterday I received an answer from the Ministry of Defence to a question that I originally asked to have answered on 25 February. I received a holding reply on 25 February and a substantive reply last night. I am being generous to the Ministry in describing it as a substantive reply because it did not really answer the question. Is it not unacceptable that it should take almost eight months for any Ministry, however hard-pressed, to respond to a question from an hon. Member?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On many previous occasions Mr. Speaker has said that he expects hon. Members to get prompt attention from Ministers. I am sure that by allowing that point of order to be expressed it gives further emphasis to the matter. Obviously, it is important that Members should be able to get their queries dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible. If the hon. Member continues to experience extraordinary delays, he may wish to take up the matter with the Public Administration Committee.

Andrew Turner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could those responsible perhaps make some effort to ensure that information which is said to be placed in the Library of the House is in fact in the Library of the House? I have received many telephone calls since the answering of a question on 19 September from the press asking for information which subsequent inquiry has discovered has not yet been sent to the Library.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, it is an irritant to hon. Members if that occurs. I can only hope that by expressing this view from the Chair, Departments will take special care to ensure that what their Ministers say is being done is backed up by the action.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 114 and 116,
	That—
	(1) the proposal for a draft Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, being a legislative proposal relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 24th October at 2.30 p.m.; and
	(3) at that meeting the Committee shall consider the legislative proposal referred to it under paragraph (1) above, and the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at 4.30 p.m.—[Mr Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

Defence in the World

[Relevant document: The Fifth Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2001–02, HC914, on the Future of NATO.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Geoff Hoon: This is the fourth of five themed defence debates planned to take place in the House in the current parliamentary Session. The title today is XDefence in the World". The House will have an opportunity at the end of the month to debate XDefence in the United Kingdom".
	Any debate about defence today must begin with the appalling events of 11 September last year, echoed again by yet more innocent deaths, this time in Bali. The unprovoked and devastating attacks in New York and Washington, and the fourth, failed hijack, have dominated policy and thinking across the world and across this Government. They were clearly the most significant drivers in the work of the Ministry of Defence in the last year.
	We are still dealing with the consequences of those events. They have included the deployment of British combat forces to Afghanistan and a review of our security and defence plans. I should like to take this opportunity to reaffirm to the House our appreciation of the way both our armed forces and the civil servants within the Ministry of Defence responded to those considerable challenges.
	We were faced with two immediate tasks in the wake of those attacks: first, we needed urgently to respond to the direct threat facing the United Kingdom and its interests; and, secondly, we needed to re-examine our policies and planning to deal with al-Qaeda and other international terrorist organisations.
	The Government's defence policy was set out in the strategic defence review of 1998. It was rightly acclaimed at the time, and the past four years have demonstrated its resilience to events. The 11 September attacks, however, required us to undertake an urgent re-examination of our stance. They showed us that what might previously have been seen as potentially dangerous but distant developments now posed a direct and immediate threat. It also involved finding new ways of dealing with those threats.
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out the Government's wider counter-terrorist strategy in the House on 16 October last year. It embraced both immediate campaign aims and longer-term objectives. In the immediate aftermath of 11 September, we sought to prevent al-Qaeda from posing a continuing terrorist threat, and to deny it a base in Afghanistan. We also made it clear that we were determined, as part of our wider strategic goals, to bring the leaders of that evil organisation to account. More widely, we sought to do everything possible to work for the elimination of international terrorism as a force for change in the world.
	Last month, we published a progress report on the campaign against international terrorism, setting out the United Kingdom's contribution to the campaign. But we all know that international terrorism demands an international response. No one nation can defeat the many, disparate and well-hidden threats, of which al-Qaeda is only the principal. Moreover, no one nation is threatened in isolation. As last weekend's awful bombing in Bali demonstrated, we are in this together and we need to act together.
	It is in that context that we are dealing with Saddam Hussein. At the end of last month, this House had the opportunity to debate the Government's response to the threat of Iraq and from its weapons of mass destruction. That Saddam Hussein is a brutal and cruel dictator is not in doubt. What has been at issue is the nature of the threat that he poses to us and to the middle east region, and what we need to do about it.
	Saddam Hussein has spent years trying to build up his stores of weapons of mass destruction; he certainly strives to add nuclear capabilities to that arsenal. If we cannot ensure his disarmament, he will eventually succeed. If we were to underestimate the threat and fall for more of his duplicitous trickery, or simply do nothing, we would be guilty of a profound abdication of responsibility. Saddam Hussein must disarm.

Llew Smith: Will the Secretary of State explain to the House in what circumstances he would consider the use of nuclear weapons?

Geoff Hoon: I have set out to the House on a considerable number of occasions that it has not been the policy of this or any Government to set out the precise circumstances in which a nuclear weapon would be used, not least because the purpose of retaining nuclear weapons is to deter. To set out precisely the circumstances in which we would use such a weapon would eliminate the effect of the deterrence. I am sure that my hon. Friend was aware of the answer that I was likely to give to him, as he has asked me that question before. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I am grateful for the opportunity of repeating it.

Graham Allen: On a slightly different matter, my right hon. Friend underlines that action should take place, if possible, in an international context—if, indeed, action is to take place in Iraq. Will he allow the House to be privy to the legal advice that the Attorney-General has given to the Government, some of which appeared in The Guardian last week? It would be helpful for colleagues in the House to understand the legal context and the legitimacy of any action that may or may not take place.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is a very experienced Member of the House and I am surprised that, after so long here, he still believes what he reads in The Guardian. I can assure him that there was not advice from Her Majesty's Law Officers. Moreover, he well knows that it is a long-standing convention that Ministers do not disclose the legal advice, or other advice, that they receive.

Glenda Jackson: Perhaps my right hon. Friend might clarify for me the Government's view at this moment, in this context, of an international community. He referred to the need for the international community to act together to tackle international terrorism. On the issue of a strike against Saddam Hussein, it would seem that the international community has reduced to two sovereign states, namely the United Kingdom and the United States. Is he saying that this now constitutes the international community and that we will engage against Iraq if the rest of what I understood to be the international community stays where it is, firmly saying no to a pre-emptive strike?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes that view of the international community. Even a superficial reading of today's newspapers—[Interruption.] I did say Xsuperficial." A superficial reading of the newspapers would demonstrate that the international community is engaged in a discussion in the United Nations and, probably as I am speaking, efforts are being made to produce a new Security Council resolution. That is involving the Security Council and other members in trying to establish the clear view of the international community. With the greatest respect, I disagree with my hon. Friend.

Bernard Jenkin: I do not often make common cause with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), but on this question I do. The Opposition have previously called for a proper explanation of the legal basis on which pre-emptive action against Iraq might be taken. It is not usual for the Government to publish their legal advice, but there are precedents, and I submit that in these circumstances the precedent is a valid one. The new Bush doctrine on pre-emptive strikes is an important development in security law. The question of pre-emption is touched upon in the Government's defence policy document on the new chapter to the strategic defence review, and it is incumbent on them to establish that what they are proposing or contemplating has a clear basis in international law.

Geoff Hoon: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that this is a new development. If he checks carefully the use of the word Xpre-emption", he will find it first referred to in the 19th century. I realise that that may be new for some Conservatives. However, the hon. Gentleman will find that there is a well-established 19th century doctrine of pre-emption based on the concept of self-defence, which allows a sovereign state to take action to protect itself in the event of an imminent threat. The document that he refers to, published by the United States Administration, is based firmly on that tradition.

Bernard Jenkin: I am delighted to hear the Government agreeing with the Bush national security strategy. However, the question is not whether pre-emption is a new concept but whether we are adjusting what we regard as an imminent threat in the new security climate. It is very difficult to establish what is an imminent threat. We want to be sure that what we judge to be an imminent threat is securely founded in international law.

Geoff Hoon: If the hon. Gentleman reads carefully what he has just said, he will realise that he is arguing in a circular manner. He is now asking me to apply the principles of international law to a situation that has not yet arisen. In those circumstances, he will understand perfectly well why it would not be sensible for me to answer his question.

Paul Keetch: The Secretary of State referred to the debate that we had on the recall of Parliament, but of course there was no vote on that occasion—[Interruption.] Well, there was no substantive vote on the deployment of British troops. The Leader of the House has suggested that there should be a substantive vote on the deployment of British troops. Indeed, the President of the United States has sought and received support from both Houses of Congress. Does the Secretary of State believe that there should be a vote before British troops are deployed into action?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House have both set out the Government's position in this matter. It will obviously be resolved when and if that time comes, but as the time has not yet come, it is not necessary for me to answer that question at this stage.

Mark Prisk: The Secretary of State seems to be suggesting that moving from the historic basis of our defence in the past 40 years—namely the principle of deterrence—to a principle of pre-emption is a minor step that does not need full explanation. Surely to goodness we need to have that debate, whether we agree on the principle or not; it is no good trying to tiptoe past it.

Geoff Hoon: On the contrary, I was not suggesting that there had been a change. I was suggesting that for the past 40 years we had lived perfectly comfortably with the concept of pre-emption and deterrence. If I did not communicate that clearly to the hon. Gentleman, I sincerely apologise, but that is the position.

Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main cause of the acts of terrorism that we have witnessed is a belief—almost certainly a mistaken belief—among Muslim communities throughout the world that they have been badly treated by the western Christian communities? Is not the worst way to deepen that suspicion and encourage more acts of terrorism to invade Iraq before there is a just settlement in Palestine?

Geoff Hoon: I simply do not accept what my hon. Friend says. If he thinks very carefully about al-Qaeda and the appalling attacks that it has perpetrated over very many years, many of which have seen Muslims as its victims, he will realise that he is talking nonsense, if he will forgive me for saying so.

Jim Cunningham: How confident is my right hon. Friend that he will get the support of the United Nations? My colleagues and I receive many letters from constituents expressing their concern that we go through the United Nations.

Geoff Hoon: That is the Government's position and we are trying to achieve our policy on that. As I said when answering an earlier question, we are using all our efforts to secure that international consensus behind our position.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Geoff Hoon: If hon. Members will forgive me, I wish to make a little progress. I shall give way again in a moment.
	We want to achieve that end through the United Nations, without recourse to military action, but we must show Saddam Hussein that we have the resolve to act. Recent history demonstrates that he will not give up his ambitions out of the goodness of his heart. We have to show that we are prepared to back our words with action, however reluctantly. It is for Saddam Hussein to avoid conflict by agreeing to abide by United Nations resolutions, granting genuinely unfettered access to weapons inspectors and obeying international law. The Government have the resolve and the will to act if he is so mistaken as to put the world's determination to the test.
	The issue remains a difficult one for all of us. No one takes these decisions lightly or without careful consideration of all the options. That is why it is so crucial that we have a clear policy underlying those options.

Mohammad Sarwar: President Bush has made it abundantly clear that if the United Nations does not act to punish Iraq, the United States will act alone, with or without UN backing. Does the Secretary of State agree with him? Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that unilateral action against Iraq will fracture the international coalition? Now is the right time to stop using the words Xinternational community", because only three heads of state support this war: Ariel Sharon and President Bush supported by our Prime Minister.

Geoff Hoon: Let me make it clear that there is no war and that the Government's policy has been consistently set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is that we will go through the United Nations and work within it to achieve that international consensus. Today, I have emphasised that that effort will be far more successful, and that efforts we make through the United Nations are more likely to be successful, if Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime are aware that we are prepared to back that determination by the use of force if it becomes necessary.

Alice Mahon: I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to a United States Congressional Budget Office document, which clearly states:
	XPresident Bush has been guaranteed that Britain will send troops to fight a US-led war."
	It continues:
	XThe report, finalised on September 30th, says Britain is the only country that has said it will commit troops".
	The document also gives a figure of #5 billion for our costs. When the Secretary of State was recently in Washington, did he discuss that report with the Congressional Budget Office? Has he seen it, has he got a copy of it and can he share it with the rest of us?

Geoff Hoon: I did not see that report and I have not read it, but I know that my hon. Friend understands the way in which the constitution of the United States operates. It is important that I emphasise to the House that the report is based on the planning assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office; it is not a document of the United States Administration. I must make it clear that any reference to, or suggestion of, any specific offer of forces by the United Kingdom is simply wrong. That office is an organ of Congress; it is not part of the United States Government. Therefore, my hon. Friend and the House should not take what it states as truth because it is based on an assumption that that office has made.

David Winnick: If the international community says clearly that under no circumstances will there be military intervention in Iraq, why should the Iraqi dictator agree to the weapons inspectors coming back? Is it not clear that after four years—that is when they were thrown out—the only reason that he has agreed in principle now to the return of those weapons inspectors is the threat of possible military action? If there is war, the responsibility will lie with him.

Geoff Hoon: I tend to agree with my hon. Friend, who puts the point more forcefully and effectively than I did.

Julian Lewis: Opponents of the war have alleged that we may face a war on two fronts—one against al-Qaeda and one against Iraq. Will the Secretary of State share with the House his view of the extent to which the resources that one uses in a war against terrorists and those that one uses in a conventional war against a military power like Saddam overlap?

Geoff Hoon: I am about to deal with the development of our policy in the wake of the events of 11 September. It is clear that the basic assumptions in the strategic defence review were right—the need to be able to get forces quickly into a crisis, whether it is provoked by a conventional armed force or by terrorism. Clearly, we have refined those assumptions in the light of what took place on 11 September—the hon. Gentleman and I have debated this matter before—and I intend to deal with that in a moment.

Tam Dalyell: Is it not important to look behind the supposed agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) with the Secretary of State? The history is that the weapons inspectors were not thrown out; they withdrew. The basic trouble was that they were abusing their position as inspectors. They were reporting back to Washington. Some, although not all of them, were spies. In Operation Desert Fox, areas were targeted that the inspectors had recently visited. That is the cause of much of the bad blood and trouble.

Geoff Hoon: Whatever the precise circumstance of their withdrawal from Iraq—I do not think that we need detain the House long on that—the reality is that the inspectors were prevented from doing the job mandated for them by the United Nations. That is why it is so important that we secure a new resolution that will allow the weapons inspectors unfettered access to any site and any place in Iraq. Otherwise, we risk repeating the mistakes that led to their withdrawal in 1998.

John McDonnell: Will the Secretary of State explicitly clarify to Congress that the Congressional Budget Office document is a fiction and that there has been no agreement on the scale of troop involvement? Also, as this relates to the cost of any war against Iraq, will he publish the figures for the scale of the costs of certain levels of engagement? For example, what would be the cost of 10,000 or 20,000 troops per week over a period of engagement? Furthermore, what would be the cost of the occupation of Iraq afterwards?

Geoff Hoon: Although I have not seen that document, as I made clear a moment ago—I am not suggesting that the document is fiction—I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that no specific decisions have been taken on any commitment of British forces and that the document is based on an assumption that has been made by the Congressional Budget Office as to the likely scale of effort and its cost. I see no advantage for the House or anyone else in publishing the sort of statistical information that my hon. Friend requests.

Geraint Davies: How important is it to have a simple resolution of the United Nations, not only to gain its acceptance, but to ensure that its terms can be delivered by Iraq credibly? If the resolution refers to persecution, accounting for the 600 people missing, oil smuggling and so forth, and includes clauses that could trigger a war, other members of the United Nations will not accept it and we will not get to the core of the issue, which is to get unfettered access for the inspectors and the decommissioning of weapons.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right. As someone who spent much time in a previous ministerial position in the Foreign Office negotiating resolution 1284 at exhausting length and in exhausting detail, I recognise that a simple statement of the international community's position is necessary today, as well as an indication of the consequences in the event of that position not being satisfied.
	Across Government, we have been set new challenges by international terrorism. We have set in train work to re-examine our defence policy and plans in the light of the terrorist threat demonstrated on 11 September. We consulted widely and openly. We published two discussion documents and ideas from individuals and organisations, including many valuable contributions from hon. Members and the other place. As a result, we published a new chapter to the strategic defence review on 18 July. It shows that the strategic defence review's emphasis on expeditionaryoperations working with allies was right, but demonstrates—crucially—how best to use our forces against a different sort of enemy: one that is determined, well hidden and vastly different from the conventional forces that we might have expected to face in the past.
	One key area that we identified as needing urgent investment was what we call network-centric capability. I honestly wish that we did not call it that, but we did. Essentially, it involves linking our intelligence, analytical and offensive forces together, so that we can strike quickly when fleeting opportunities arise. This means that we will invest more in airborne sensors such as unmanned aerial vehicles, and more in the networks that assemble and process the data from the sensors. The precision systems that will hit the targets identified could include Tomahawk or Storm Shadow missiles, or special forces, or the Apache attack helicopter, depending on what is the most militarily effective. This is already costing the country money. We have therefore addressed not only the adjustments that were needed to policy and capabilities, but the resources needed to implement them.
	The results of the spending review announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in July represented the largest sustained increase in defence spending for 20 years. By 2005–06, the defence budget will be some #3.5 billion higher than it is this year. That constitutes real growth of 3.7 per cent. over three years—3 per cent. in the year 2003–04 alone. That spending is to be focused on accelerating the modernisation and evolution of the armed forces in response to the changing strategic environment.
	I have already heard grumbling from the Opposition about defence spending, but it is worth noting that the Opposition spokesman cannot undertake to match our spending pound for pound. When the rhetoric is stripped away, the facts are simple: one cannot defend the United Kingdom with waffle, as he has sought to do. It is only this Government who are prepared to put their money where their mouth is on defence. That money is not for investing in the status quo. It will be used not only to procure cutting-edge technology for the armed forces, but to modernise the way we work as a Department, improve efficiency, and enhance living conditions for our armed forces. We may have more to spend, but we need to spend it better.

Bob Russell: Will the Secretary of State advise the House as to the current strength of the British Army, and whether its being under strength is affecting its capacity to undertake all its duties?

Geoff Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are still slightly short of the target set, but in recent months a record number of recruits have entered basic training. Although we still have some ambitious targets to satisfy, I am confident that we are taking the right decisions to enable us to move toward the manning totals for the Army and the other two services.

John Wilkinson: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, under the headline goals established to make the European security and defence identity effective, significant force improvements are required by all the participating countries. The United Kingdom is not doing too badly, and the French are doing exceptionally well through their five-year defence review. Will he therefore recommend to other European allies that they follow the French example, and if necessary bust the criteria of the stability pact to achieve the headline goals?

Geoff Hoon: I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman say something nice about France—there is hope for us all. I shall deal briefly with European defence matters in a moment, but he is right: it is vital not only that countries spend more on defence, but that they spend the money better. I do not know whether his question betrays support for the headline goal process, but I shall not push him too far, given his previous admission. We have strongly supported that process in part because it is concentrated on capabilities—on a process of persuading our partners in the European Union to spend more on defence, and to spend it better.
	It is important that our service men and women are equipped with reliable and effective weapons that are up to the demands that we place on them. Obviously, they should have full confidence in the equipment that they use. The House will be aware of the decision to retain in service the SA80 A2 weapons system. Modifications to the system have improved its reliability and made it among the best in the world. Those findings have been confirmed in a series of stringent trials. I want to reassure the House that Defence Ministers and senior members of the military have looked at the issue closely. I am fully satisfied that we have taken the right decision, that the SA80 A2 is up to the job, and that, as our service personnel see its capabilities properly demonstrated, their confidence in this vital equipment will be retained.
	Of course, it is not just at our own national level that we need to organise our defence capabilities to meet the threats and demands of the new strategic environment. NATO is on track with its transformation programme, which will be the key element of next month's Prague summit. The alliance's command structure will be reshaped, and new capabilities and the proposed NATO response force will provide the cutting edge. As I said, we continue to work with our European partners to strengthen European capabilities under the European Union's headline goal, which we aim to have delivered by the end of next year.

Tam Dalyell: As a former, albeit extremely junior, member of 7th Armoured Brigade, may I ask about the Challenger tank? Those of us who were tank crew in previous eras are understandably concerned at what we read about the problems with the Challenger 2, and the filters that might be required in the desert.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend refers to one of the lessons learned from a major desert exercise in Oman. It clearly demonstrated that, whatever the prevailing sand conditions, the Challenger 2 needs appropriate modification if it is to be deployed in such circumstances. I can assure the House that, in the event of so deploying a Challenger 2, it will be appropriately modified.

Jim Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware of evidence taken by the Defence Committee yesterday from Simon Webb, director of policy at the Ministry of Defence? We got the impression that Challenger 2s were sent out not to learn lessons about filters and how deployable they are in deserts, but to test whether they could get out there.

Geoff Hoon: There is no doubt that they got out there, but I am not sure that it is wholly sensible to draw the distinction that my hon. Friend draws. I doubt whether the House would regard it as particularly satisfactory for me to set out only those lessons learned that we intended to learn; the truth is that we have to learn a range of lessons from that experience, and I can assure the House that we have done so.
	Our work over the past 12 months has been focused on one simple proposition: the need to defend the people of the United Kingdom, their interests and their allies. We face many threats in an increasingly unpredictable world, but above all else we have to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The recent admission by North Korea that it has a nuclear weapons programme illustrates how critical that is. The terrible nature and power of these weapons in unscrupulous hands is such that there can be few more important challenges than protecting ourselves and our friends and allies from their potentially devastating impact.
	Let us make no mistake: there are people who are more than willing to use such weapons against us. I have spoken of Iraq, but the possibility of any one of a range of terrorist groups acquiring a chemical, biological, radiological or even nuclear weapon is far from fantasy. They are trying to acquire such weapons, and we cannot be certain that they will not succeed. In terms of the death and destruction that they can cause and the strategic effect that they can achieve, many of these weapons are neither costly nor even complex to manufacture.
	Linked to the threat from weapons of mass destruction is that of ballistic missile proliferation. Such missiles pose a threat in themselves, but it is their capability to deliver WMD warheads that make them still more of a concern. Right hon. and hon. Members may therefore find it helpful if I say a few words about the work in the United States on the development of ballistic missile defence systems, and this Government's position on such systems.
	The United States' withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile treaty took effect on 13 June. Contrary to some commentators' expectations, that did not prove to be the prelude to a new strategic arms race. In fact, it coincided with the negotiation and conclusion of the Moscow treaty, under which the United States and Russia agreed to steep reductions in the numbers of their deployed strategic nuclear warheads. The US missile defence programme is gathering momentum, as Monday evening's successful test illustrates. In particular, the United States has plans for a test-bed in the Pacific, to be used to develop and evaluate options for a basic missile defence system capable of addressing the full range of missile threats. Developing effective ballistic missile defence is a hugely challenging task. Any system will inevitably have to develop on an evolutionary basis, as understanding increases of the technological and other risks and opportunities involved.
	During the summer, US officials visited London and other European capitals, as well as NATO headquarters in Brussels, to set out possible approaches to missile defence and to repeat US willingness to offer protection to friends and allies. It is right that we recognise the potential contribution of missile defence to a comprehensive strategy to deal with the threat from ballistic missiles—a strategy that also includes non-proliferation and counter-proliferation measures, diplomacy and deterrence.
	The close access to the US research programme that we already enjoy will be essential background to inform any decisions that we may wish to take on missile defence for Europe or the United Kingdom. Against that background, I want to make two points that I and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have made many times before. The United States Administration have made no specific decisions about the precise future architecture of a United States missile defence system. No formal request has been made to us for the use of RAF Fylingdales as part of the US programme.
	If a US request for the use of Fylingdales—or any other UK facility for missile defence purposes—is received, we will consider it very seriously. The Government would agree to such a request only if we were satisfied that the overall security of the UK and the alliance would be enhanced. Since this subject is highly complex and one of considerable interest to the House, I have asked for some detailed analytical work to be completed on the implications of missile defence and its relationship with other elements of a comprehensive strategy against the ballistic missile threat. We welcome parliamentary and public discussion of the issues involved. I therefore intend to make available in the coming months further analytical and discussion material as our work progresses, and we will be ready to discuss these issues in the House at the appropriate time.

Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Secretary of State not just made a coded statement that Britain will take part in missile defence and will support the United States in this costly disaster—the proposed star wars in the sky—which will cost this country dear, and line us up ever more closely with the United States and all its interests, against the rest of the world?

Geoff Hoon: I do not recall saying that. I am sure, however, that if my hon. Friend has the opportunity to read carefully what I said, he will see that there was no code but a clear statement of the Government's current position.

Mark Prisk: As the Secretary of State will recall, I have asked him about this issue repeatedly over the last year, and I am pleased that we are finally achieving a little parity. May I tease out a little more from him on what he described as the close access that the Government have enjoyed? Over the last year, in answering questions from me and others, he has said that there has been no direct involvement. Is he now saying that there have been links? Can he confirm that a Royal Air Force officer who is already operating and working at NATO is participating in the programme there? I welcome the progress, but I hope that he can be clear on the matter.

Geoff Hoon: I assure the hon. Gentleman that at no stage have I misled the House on these matters. In answer to parliamentary questions, we have made it clear that a research programme has been continuing in the Ministry of Defence for some time on the technical matters to which I have just referred. The material to which I have referred and the co-operation that is enjoyed by the United Kingdom with the United States is about basic research principles. That has been disclosed to the House on many previous occasions.

Paul Keetch: I am glad that the Government will, effectively, produce a dossier on Britain's potential involvement in national missile defence, and that there might be a debate. Can the Secretary of State tell us when it might be? Will he assure the House that, if there is to be a dossier and a debate, we will have more time to look at it than we did in relation to the dossier on Iraq?

Geoff Hoon: The fair answer to that is that it will take place when we are ready.

Jim Knight: I have yet to make up my mind on missile defence. Does the Secretary of State agree that, when we have the debate, it is important to move away from the nonsense about star wars—with every respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn)—and recognise that there are three phases to a missile? Only one of those phases would involve interception in space, and I understand that that is the most difficult and the most unlikely to be developed. If we want a sensible debate so that people can make up their minds, let us do that, and not get wrapped up in strange media myths such as star wars.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his common-sense approach. Perhaps he might assist in advising some of my other colleagues on the circumstances in question.

Julian Lewis: Will the Secretary of State at least agree that those of his Back-Bench colleagues who are so opposed to taking action against Saddam Hussein, and who feel that Saddam should be left at liberty to go on developing ballistic missiles, should at least experience a belated conversion to ballistic missile defence? That might make their other recommendations a little more credible.

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that my hon. Friends heard the hon. Gentleman's observations.

Patrick Mercer: Ballistic missiles apart, can the Secretary of State guarantee that, as, when and if our troops are deployed into harm's way—from people such as Saddam Hussein—theatre missile defence will be in place to protect them in the same way that American, Italian, French and German troops have that protection?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman and I have debated the matter before. I have answered that question on several previous occasions, and I am not sure that we will take the matter further. I will not give guarantees of anything, as, clearly, it would not be appropriate at this stage to make the kind of assumptions that he is making. I want to make progress, because I have detained the House longer than I should have done.
	Away from the policy issues, our armed forces are involved in a considerable number of active deployments around the world. The Ministry of Defence has been extremely busy over the past year. However, given the draw-down in Afghanistan, and with major reductions in prospect in the Balkans, there is now a healthier balance between our standing commitments and the resources available. Our armed forces have done, and are doing, excellent work. Afghanistan is now a significantly different nation from the one that existed a year ago. Freedom of expression and education has replaced the arbitrary authority of the Taliban regime. None the less, there is much work still to do in that country and, as the Prime Minister recently said, we will not abandon our newest ally until that work is completed. I am pleased to say that the Defence Minister of Afghanistan, Marshal Fahim Khan, will pay a visit to the United Kingdom shortly.
	In the Balkans, we continue to support the international community's efforts to create new European states from the ruins of Yugoslavia. Our work in Sierra Leone has been a model of how the determination and professionalism of our forces can change lives. When we arrived there, the elected Government were close to collapse, rebels were carrying out terrible atrocities almost at will, and the nation faced a bleak future. Today, Sierra Leone is rebuilding. We have put a great deal of effort into security sector reform, together with the Department for International Development, to reinforce democratic control of the armed forces. Similar efforts have been made with the Sierra Leonean police. There is now peace, increasing economic success, elections and real hope for the future.

David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend recall the ferocious opposition to military intervention in Kosovo and Afghanistan? Is it not the case that, had we listened to the critics, Milosevic would not be in the dock but would have continued in power in Belgrade—ethnic cleansing would have continued to a worse degree than had already happened—and the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan? Have the critics, to my right hon. Friend's knowledge, apologised and explained that they were wrong at the time?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is clear that, in all of the examples that he has given, the international community initially sought a diplomatic and political route to achieve those ends. Clearly, there have been occasions when a diplomatic and political route has been successful in avoiding conflict and bringing about a peaceful and sensible resolution. Equally, he rightly points out the occasions on which it has been necessary to back that diplomacy with a threat, or, ultimately, with the use of force. On occasions, that has also proved successful.

Alice Mahon: rose—

Harry Barnes: rose—

Geoff Hoon: To be fair to the House, I should make progress, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes).

Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some Labour Members who gave support in connection with Kosovo in particular, and also in relation to Afghanistan—although there was criticism of how the action took place—do not support in any set of circumstances the planned military action in connection with Iraq? Different arguments operate in different cases.

Geoff Hoon: I accept that proposition entirely. It is for each and every Member of the House to reach his or her conclusion on these questions. I accept that, in different circumstances, there will be different approaches.

Alice Mahon: Having recently visited Kosovo, not for the first time, may I ask my right hon. Friend, who claims that the action there was a success, when nearly 250,000 people from ethnic minorities who were expelled from Kosovo will be able to return there? The report that we received was not very positive. When will there be a report to the House on what happened to the 1,300 people who have disappeared since the NATO bombing?

Geoff Hoon: I, too, have been regular visitor to Kosovo since British troops first went there. All that I would say to my hon. Friend is that clearly there are problems. No one pretends that it is easy to move from a situation in which tens of thousands of people were losing their lives or were threatened with losing their lives and in which the most appalling atrocities were committed. I accept that there are still significant difficulties. The Government and I have argued consistently that we would like the Serbs to return to their homes and work in Kosovo.

Alice Mahon: Not just the Serbs.

Geoff Hoon: Indeed; and the other minorities, many of whom have left Kosovo. However, that aim will not be achieved without the restoration of confidence in the political structures available in that part of the world. As my hon. Friend knows, that process takes time, but it is not helped by running down the efforts that the international community has made so far to avert the type of humanitarian catastrophe that was so long a feature of Kosovo at the hands Milosevic.
	Against the successes, we must not forget the many continuing challenges around the world, not least the tension between India and Pakistan. I visited both countries at the beginning of July in an effort to maintain the diplomatic momentum. There are issues on both sides, which must be resolved. Full and substantive dialogue between the two countries must be the ultimate goal. Defence diplomacy, an initiative launched in the strategic defence review, has an important part to play therefore.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Geoff Hoon: No, I must finish my speech.
	Defence diplomacy involves building key relationships with military and diplomatic personnel in countries across the world, sharing our experience and expertise. Those relationships give us rapid and direct access to decision makers in questions such as over-fly rights or forward basing. In some cases, we are building relationships with states that supported terrorism in the past, helping them to join the international community as full partners. The Ministry of Defence is greatly aided in this by support from other Departments, such as the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
	This has been—and continues to be—one of the most challenging times for defence in recent years. We face difficult choices. We will need to show resolve, but we will not be deflected from pursuing our strategic goals, forming new alliances and demonstrating the professionalism, dedication and determination of Britain's armed forces as a force for good in the world. 2.52 pm

Bernard Jenkin: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement on missile defence. Although it does not constitute a change of policy or involve a marked shift in expenditure or a commitment to a particular programme, it marks a considerable shift in his tone. I did not come to the Chamber today with the intention of majoring on the subject of missile defence, because I took the view that, after the Bali attack, to carry on highlighting the absence of ministerial commitment to missile defence would do nothing but add to public anxiety. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's timing is well chosen. The public require reassurance on this issue. Weapons proliferation continues and we know that investigation into possible programmes has continued in the right hon. Gentleman's Department and that the NATO working party, in which the UK is a prime facilitator, has continued its work on missile defence, so it has become increasingly ridiculous for the Government to insist that Xno decisions have been made."
	I very much welcome the movement that the Secretary of State has made today, but I must point out that Her Majesty's Opposition have been pleading with the Government on this issue for some time; my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised the issue of missile defence long before the last election, and such a statement from the Secretary of State was long overdue. I welcome it unreservedly and look forward to seeing the papers that he will lay before the House and to engaging in the debate that he says he will now welcome.
	I stress a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). At a recent conference that I attended on missile defence, it was noticeable that Britain is virtually the only country in Europe that is not well down the track of developing a deployable theatre missile defence system. I have no desire to set hares running as I have no doubt that whatever is required to protect forces in theatre will be provided, but my hon. Friend deserves a fuller answer in the fullness of time than the Secretary of State felt able to give today. As we embark on this debate, I see nothing to be gained on the Government's part unless there is absolute openness. At a time when public anxiety about terrorist attacks and weapons of mass destruction is running high, surely we should do everything that we can to reassure the public and give them confidence in what we are saying and doing.
	I also welcome the Secretary of State's statement about the SA80 A2, and I am grateful for the notice that he gave me earlier today of his intention to raise this matter. He has put an important statement on the record. It is one thing for senior military officers to stake their reputations on this matter, but it is also right that the Ministers who are responsible for taking the decision put their views clearly on the record. I very much welcome the fact that that has happened today. I am grateful to the Government for the briefing that I received on the SA80 A2.
	The decisive factor will be the confidence of soldiers and the Royal Marines, and it is their judgment that I will trust. I believe that the Government have every right to think that the soldiers and Royals Marines will have confidence in the weapon when the new arrangements and the necessary equipment are issued and the further modification is carried out. However, we will not let the matter drop if soldiers do not show confidence in the weapon on which they might have to stake their lives.
	The background to the debate is the dreadful atrocities committed in Bali last weekend. The facts are stark. The initial evidence suggests that this was a highly practised and skilful attack. The blast was directed at the Sari nightclub and reminiscent of the expertise of the most skilful terrorist organisation in the world, the Provisional IRA.
	It has further come to light that Jemaah Islamiyah has a long record of sending young Islamic scholars to the same fundamentalist Islamic schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan as bin Laden's al-Qaeda. Jemaah Islamiyah is embedded in the bloody concept of jihad, and its sister terrorist organisation in Indonesia, Ngruki, has had terrorist training in Afghanistan. Can there be any doubt that this attack is at least associated with al-Qaeda and should definitely be included in the war on terrorism?
	We must ask ourselves where such groups are next likely to strike. There have already been further bomb attacks in the Philippines and we must be prepared for, and expect, a constant stream of attempts to cause terrorist atrocities anywhere in the world. That means our own country. The message that came out of 11 September last year is that we live in a far less predictable world than we thought. I am afraid that the Bali attack does nothing to allay those fears.

David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, agree that predictability depends on intelligence? Her Majesty's Government set an example when we were recalled in the recess to debate Iraq. They created a precedent by providing intelligence information, including from MI6, on the threat from Iraq. Does he agree that that precedent should be followed? Should not information from the intelligence services on threats from any terrorist organisation, domestic or international, be placed before the House in the way that it was in September? That was an example of open government.

Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I do not feel qualified to give him a full and frank answer. That would require deep consideration. He is trying to take me down a path that I do not want to follow, certainly not today. However, his point is well made and I have no doubt that Ministers have listened, so perhaps they will respond at the end of the debate.
	The point about the Bali bombing is that it confirms the nature of the security environment in which we now live. As Lord Robertson, the Secretary General of NATO, has predicted, we can look forward to more instability, more conflicts spilling over into neighbouring countries and regions and more terrorism. It is appropriate that we pay tribute to the security services for the number of attacks that they have succeeded in foiling since 11 September. There will be more failed states, both rogue states and those with essentially benign or good governments struggling against the odds that we have seen in Indonesia, and more proliferation, as we have seen today with the US Administration's confirmation about a nuclear weapons programme in North Korea. The question that we must ask ourselves, which lies at the heart of everything we do as we consider defence in the world, is how we counter that.

Jeremy Corbyn: Obviously I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the terrible nature of the Bali bombing and the terrible loss of life there. Is he concerned, however, that the Indonesian armed forces, which may receive support from western Governments in future, have a poor human rights record? Their activities in West Papua and Aceh are deplorable, as are those of the Indonesian militia. Is not this the time to encourage the Indonesian Government to have civilian control of their armed forces rather than the virtually independent state that they now enjoy?

Bernard Jenkin: I shall turn to how we should help Indonesia later in my speech, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will address that point.
	The next question is how the Bali bombing affects our attitude to Iraq. First, I entirely concur with the Prime Minister that there is, as he explained so eloquently to the House on Tuesday, a connection between terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. As he put it, both issues are threats and,
	Xthe same type of fanaticism and extremism is driving both threats."
	He continued,
	Xif we allow unstable states—with oppressive and dictatorial regimes—to develop weapons of mass destruction and also allow the terrorist groups to operate, we can be confident that the two threats will . . . at some point come together."—[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 186.]
	There is therefore no question of our adjusting policy towards Iraq in light of what happened in Bali.
	Furthermore, let us not be squeamish about considering the likelihood of terrorist connections with the Saddam Hussein regime. Shards of evidence are constantly emerging which all point in the same direction. Recently it was announced:
	XMansour Thaer has been charged with conspiracy of involvement with criminal association and is under arrest in Germany. Thaer has been investigated . . . for his links with a terrorist cell, and for participation in criminal conspiracy to traffic in arms, explosives, chemical weapons, identity papers, receiving stolen goods and aiding illegal immigration."
	Mansour Thaer is an Iraqi national, born in Iraq and probably operating under the control of the Iraqi Government.

Mohammad Sarwar: Eleven of those involved in the attacks of 11 September—in fact the majority of those involved—were Saudi nationals. The hon. Gentleman is accusing Iraq; is he saying that Saudi Arabia has links with terrorism?

Bernard Jenkin: I do not think that the Saudi Government have willing links with terrorism, but if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the origin of some of the money for terrorist organisations, I certainly share his concern. The difference between the Iraqi Government and the Saudi Government is that the Saudi Government recognise that this is a problem but the Iraqi Government make it their policy.

Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a report released today by the Council on Foreign Relations, written by a group headed by the former heads of the CIA and the FBI, which complains about Saudi Arabia's intransigence on the subject of providing al-Qaeda with access to funding sources in Saudi Arabia, and indicates that George Bush is not using the USA's full power and influence to combat terrorism funding from Saudi Arabia? Is the hon. Gentleman concerned about that?

Bernard Jenkin: I will not be sidetracked on to that subject. We all know that there are problems with a number of regimes in several regions, and we can bounce them all off the problem of Iraq. The fact is that Iraq is the most immediate threat and the one that we must deal with as a priority.
	A recent letter to Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, from George Tenet, director of central intelligence, made it clear that
	Xthe likelihood of Saddam using W.M.D. for blackmail, deterrence or otherwise grows as his arsenal builds."
	George Tenet confirms:
	XWe have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression . . . we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities."
	The letter goes on. Should not we trust the representatives of democratically elected Governments rather than the word of an evil dictator such as Saddam Hussein?

Doug Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the same person said in the same communication with Congress that Saddam Hussein was not an immediate threat to the United States and that his greatest threat to the US would be from the use of chemical weapons in retaliation to a pre-emptive strike?

Bernard Jenkin: The corollary of that point is that the hon. Gentleman would not support even UN-sanctioned military action against Iraq. If we are to be deterred by the possibility that Saddam Hussein might retaliate, we had better pack up and go home now. I do not think that that is the hon. Gentleman's policy. Furthermore, I think that he is misconstruing George Tenet's letter, which was occasioned by some people in the United States trying to misconstrue the evidence provided by a witness. The letter said:
	XIn the above dialogue, the witness's qualifications—'in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now'—were intended to underscore that the likelihood of Saddam using W.M.D. for blackmail, deterrence or otherwise grows as his arsenal builds."
	Would the hon. Gentleman like to let the arsenal of weapons of mass destruction grow, along with the threat that they represent, or would he prefer to deal with them now?

Doug Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman consider that the question whether a threat grows as an arsenal grows is different from the question whether Saddam Hussein's current arsenal is a threat to the United States in the absence of any awareness by Saddam Hussein's regime that Iraq is likely to be the subject of a pre-emptive strike?

Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is going to the heart of the matter, which is why I invited the Secretary of State to join in the debate about how we assess an imminent threat as we consider our self-defence in the new strategic environment. Again I invite the Secretary of State to join in. This is an important debate, and to gloss over it and pretend that there is nothing new in the philosophy of our defence in the new environment is not reassuring. We should be seeking openly to debate it and provide reassurance. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein constitutes an imminent threat, and that may be the difference between him and me.

Julian Lewis: Surely, the point of even considering pre-emption is that it should be undertaken before the threat becomes so severe that we dare not take any action. On the very important passages that my hon. Friend read out about possible links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, if such links exist, is there not a strong possibility at this very moment that the wave of al-Qaeda atrocities that is building up is designed precisely to try divert the west from attacking Saddam Hussein?

Bernard Jenkin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on that last point. That is why I am appalled that some people argue that we are fighting two different problems and say that the problem of Iraq is in a separate box. Such people argue that we should leave the Iraq problem—this is Liberal Democrat policy—and fight the war on terrorism. That is exactly what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said and I have debated the matter with him. The idea that those problems are completely different is mistaken. They may be different theatres, but they are the same war, and in practice, the idea that we should allow two bombs in Bali to be an excuse for allowing the United Nations to let Saddam off the hook would be a disaster. What an invitation to terrorism that would be. The bombs in Bali must stiffen our resolve to confront threats wherever they emerge in the new security environment, and we should not be listening to the likes of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Paul Keetch: The hon. Gentleman is falling into the same trap as the Leader of the Opposition did when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) rightly destroyed him during the recall debate. We will take no lessons from his party, which did not support the Government's deployment of British troops to Sierra Leone or East Timor. We have said that we would be prepared to entertain the idea of military action against Iraq as a last resort, but only if it is consistent with international law and is supported by the House. We would also take into account the consequences of such action on the coalition of the campaign against terrorism that the Prime Minister and the President have so successfully brought together.

Bernard Jenkin: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should have the arrogance to believe that the Prime Minister and the President of the United States would use military force except as a last resort. The idea that our democratically elected Prime Minister would rush into war when it is not a last resort is extraordinary. I am afraid that those who express such views are playing on people's false fears instead of trying to reassure them, which I think is the job of politicians in this House.

David Winnick: With all due respect, I imagine that I am about the last person on the Labour Benches who would come to the defence of the Liberal Democrats. It happens that my views are very much the same as those expressed from the two Front Benches. However, when we debated the same subject on 24 September, much to my disappointment, a number of Opposition Members expressed views resembling those of Labour and Liberal Democrat critics. It is as well to bear in mind that, although the three main parties seem to be divided, a large majority fortunately seems in favour of the sort of action that may well be necessary to deal with somebody whom the hon. Gentleman rightly described as the very evil mass murderer and war criminal who continues to rule in Iraq.

Bernard Jenkin: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point. It is sad that anybody should try to score political or personal points in respect of such a serious matter instead of trying to debate the substantive issues.

Bill Wiggin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the essence of a threat to the Iraqi regime is that it can be substantive only if we are united? Any Liberal Democrat cracks in that coalition will be exploited by the very people who we least want to exploit them.

Bernard Jenkin: I believe that unity is an advantage in an international coalition and at a national level, but it should never stifle debate. Although I disagree with what some hon. Members say in the House, I will do my damnedest to ensure that they have the right to say it. We must never forget that right, but I do not think that we should seek to score personal points on this matter.

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I think that we have spent enough time on this topic. Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me for continuing, or does he wish to move on?

Paul Flynn: I only want to ask the hon. Gentleman why he does not agree with the CIA, which says that Iraq would be most likely to use weapons of mass destruction and to collaborate with terrorists not in the current situation or without an invasion, but if, following an invasion, Saddam Hussein saw himself as defeated, became hopeless, suicidal and desperate and let loose his biological and chemical weapons in an act of vengeance or allowed them to be used by al-Qaeda. Is not that the greatest danger that we face?

Bernard Jenkin: The greatest danger that we face is to do nothing and allow the danger to grow. How much harder it will be to confront the threat if, in five or 10 years' time, Saddam Hussein has a nuclear weapon or a long-range missile system that can deliver chemical warheads to European cities. That is the threat that we must confront and debate as Ximmediate" in the context of self-defence.

Hugo Swire: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that we are not talking merely about the possibility of Saddam using the weapons, as we know that he has already used them and continues to do so, not least to attack his Kurdish population.

Bernard Jenkin: Indeed, the CIA, to which the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) referred, did no more than confirm exactly what happened in 1991 when Saddam Hussein attempted to use chemical and biological weapons and tried to deliver missiles on to neighbouring countries in order to deter the liberation of Kuwait. We did not allow that to deter us then and we must not do so now.

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall move on.
	Of course, the long-term objective on Iraq is disarmament. If that means regime change, our objective must be to create a stable and safe Iraq as a foundation for stability in the middle east—not a haven for suicide bombers. Do the Government look forward to a democratic Iraq? Iraq should be the second wealthiest country in the region and one of the principal world suppliers of crude oil. What provisions are the Government making for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq? The Prime Minister himself said that he heartily desired regime change. In Washington, there has been talk of a post-Saddam occupation plan and the establishment of an American-led military Government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam. The Government should be engaging in a similar debate.
	Have the Government met representatives of opposition groups? I asked that question when we last debated this subject, but we have not had an answer. Are they involved in discussions about long-term transition to a stable Government? What level of diplomatic, economic and military commitment would the allies need to make in the event of the collapse of the Saddam regime? What is their assessment of the domestic opposition in Iraq and the question whether it would be hampered by internal divisions predating the Saddam regime?

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is asking the Government about their policy on a future for Iraq after Saddam Hussein. What is the policy of the Conservative party, especially with regard to the right of self-determination of the people of Kurdistan in Iraq?

Bernard Jenkin: Our view is that it would be undesirable for Iraq to break up. I have had meetings with representatives of the Kurdistan Government and meetings with representatives of the Iraqi opposition. However, the Conservatives are only the Opposition, and it is incumbent on the Government to have discussions, form a view and make proposals. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question, there is a danger of embracing an overtly federalist constitution that might reflect the current de facto self-rule of Kurdistan but cause alarm in the Turkish Government. The Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Ecevit, has reacted angrily to the publication of such a constitution. We should be using our influence to ensure that whatever constitutional settlement might emerge in the event that the Saddam Hussein Government fall is likely to be stable and sustainable. With our influence in that region, Britain has a great role to play in that respect.

Angus Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing yet another intervention. Surely the future set-up of a post-Saddam Hussein Government should be up to the people of Iraq, and nobody else.

Bernard Jenkin: The international community, as in Afghanistan, has a big role to play in facilitating the self-determination of the Iraqi people. At present they do not have self-determination in any meaningful or democratic sense. I would heartily embrace anything that we could do to improve that situation.
	Indonesia, however, is not a rogue state. Unlike Iraq, the situation there is not something that might be helped by anything that could be construed as western military interference. Indonesia is a country that would benefit from as much hands-off support as possible. What are the Government offering to help the Indonesian Government to reform their armed forces and to increase their effectiveness? The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the matter earlier. There is no doubt that the Indonesian military is still emerging from the Suharto era, and needs better equipment, better communications, and a much stronger system of command and control and accountability. With our skills, Britain has a great deal to offer Indonesia in that regard, and I hope that we will offer positive help, rather than just criticising.
	Will the Government offer Indonesia access to the UK's unrivalled expertise in anti-terrorist operations, in particular for forensic investigations and intelligence gathering? Those who have been watching, as I have, the scenes of devastation in Bali on our television screens have not seen the careful control of the evidence that lies on the streets and in the rubble of the buildings, as we would expect to see in this country. We have seen people laying wreaths on what might well constitute evidence to be used against those who perpetrated the bombing. That is the sort of expertise that I hope we could offer.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I must stop giving way, as so many hon. Members want to speak.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again and allowing me to intervene again on the subject of Indonesia. Perhaps he could address now the point that I raised earlier, concerning political control of the military, the apparently close relationship between the military and the militia, and the most appalling human rights abuses taking place in West Papua, where there are oil and many other mineral reserves that multinational companies wish to exploit, and in Aceh. Some of us were in East Timor at the time of the referendum. There is concern that the military and the militia are one and the same thing, and until that is resolved, any relationship with the military is extremely damaging to the human rights of ordinary people in that country.

Bernard Jenkin: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. I raise the matter in my remarks because I believe that that is the sort of issue on which the British Government should be offering assistance to Indonesia.
	What advice can we offer to help the Indonesian Government bring in the necessary legal reforms, like our anti-terrorist legislation? They are certainly behind what we would expect in other countries. We should bear in mind the fact that we are discussing one of the largest countries in the world, with a population of 220 million people—almost the size of the population of the United States, and comparable to the size of the European Union.
	Given that tourism comprised up to one third of the Indonesian gross domestic product before the Bali atrocities, do the Government agree that there will need to be international action to stabilise the Indonesian economy, so that progress on economic and military reform and progress towards democracy in Indonesia can continue? One of the hallmarks of al-Qaeda's terrorist activities is to cause precisely such economic dislocation in order to damage the interests of the west, destabilise Governments and create fertile ground for more terrorism. Surely it should be one of our priorities to confront that.
	Does not the example of Indonesia underline the fact that terrorism cannot be defeated by military means alone? I shall spend a few minutes arguing for a more comprehensive doctrine which we have heard enunciated against international terrorism. The principles of counter-insurgency warfare are not new. We have been practising them in Northern Ireland and on the British mainland against Northern Ireland terrorism for the past 30 years. They originate in the wars of the north-west frontier in the previous century and the Indian mutiny.
	Those principles are, first, to secure one's own base and implement one's home defence; secondly, to deny the enemy a secure base—we have dealt with pre-emption, and I hope that we will discuss it further. The next principles are to generate best human intelligence, to remove underlying political grievances, to co-ordinate all one's actions to a strategic plan, and to remember that the battle is for hearts and minds, and that conflict is about willpower, not just physical force. A further principle is to remember that actions and words, including the technical, can have political and strategic consequences. Finally, it is important to stay within the law and to use proportionate force only as a last resort.
	Winning hearts and minds must be the central theme of everything we do in the war against terrorism. Winning the war against terrorism is as much an act of persuasion as of coercion. Our actions must prove that we stand for all those human values that we are defending. We must not allow organisations such as al-Qaeda to create a pervasive state of war between the west and Islam, or between the west and the Arab world. We must address the political challenges and conflicts that serve as the feeding ground for terrorists. We must provide the humanitarian relief that shows that we are committed to the well-being of humanity throughout the world. We must develop the ability to help failing countries satisfy their people's social and economic needs. We must support and partner moderate Islam. We must open real dialogue and have real diplomacy with as many countries as possible around the world in the war against terrorism. I am shortly to visit Egypt, where I hope to learn as much as possible about the problems in the Gulf.

David Laws: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there are any other rogue nations against which it will be necessary to take pre-emptive action in the near future, such as North Korea?

Bernard Jenkin: No. Of course, diplomacy can function in the war against terrorism only if it is ultimately backed by the threat of military force. Both diplomacy and military action depend on broad international support and unity. I am surprised that the Secretary of State made little reference to the upcoming Prague summit. It is the drifting apart of the Atlantic alliance that is by far the most dangerous diplomatic development since 11 September last year. That could be seen as a principal objective of rogue states and terrorist organisations. How they must rub their hands with glee when they see Europe and the United States falling out about how to deal with the problem of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. I remind the House of one of the principles of counter-insurgency warfare: to co-ordinate all one's actions to a strategic plan. How can we achieve that unless we have an active and sustainable transatlantic alliance? That is why the NATO summit in Prague next month is a defining moment in the war against terrorism and for NATO itself.
	There are three issues that need to be addressed. The first is to reform the structure for developing a joint understanding of threats and how to deal with them. That is what NATO did during the cold war. At the beginning of the cold war, NATO was a shadow of what it is now. It did not have the integrated command and military structure allowing senior military officers to sit down and discuss what the threats are, what the necessary responses are, and what national defence policies are needed to deal with those threats. That process in NATO must be revived.
	Secondly, we need to develop military capabilities relevant to the modern threats. The Prague capability initiative will be a vital part of bringing the west together in the war against terrorism. Thirdly, we need to find the political will to act as an alliance to deal with those threats.
	The Government should welcome the Rumsfeld proposal that there should be one or many NATO rapid reaction forces. We need forces—NATO forces, coalition forces—that are fast, lethal, superior to anything that they are likely to encounter and deployable way beyond our traditional borders. The UK, which developed the expeditionary concept in the defence review of the 1990s and in the strategic defence review, should be leading the initiative. Our armed forces are the best example of that initiative.
	What will be the UK's contribution to the debate? The dangers that we face stem from the growing disparity between the United States' and the rest of NATO's military capabilities, which threatens NATO cohesion. For example, the United States currently provides 100 per cent. of NATO's standoff jamming capability, 90 per cent. of the air-to-ground surveillance and reconnaissance, and almost 80 per cent. of the air-to-air refuelling tankers necessary to conduct operations. There are 250 long-range transports available to NATO from the United States, while the rest of the alliance can provide merely 11. The United States has no more fighters and bombers than the European NATO members, but only a tiny fraction of the European fighters and bombers have precision-guided weapons while 100 per cent. of American fighters and bombers have such weapons.
	Therefore, we fully support and welcome what the Foreign Secretary said in Chicago yesterday about the disparity between the United States and the rest of NATO:
	XA relationship where one side of the Alliance disproportionately shoulders the military burden is a recipe for resentment."
	That is a priority for the European countries of NATO to address.
	The third issue that needs to be addressed is finding the political will—that is the other threat to cohesion in NATO—and how that will has been sapped by the European security and defence policy! How sensible it would be if we could get back to the XBerlin plus" arrangements that were approved in 1996 to create a European security and defence identity within the NATO alliance. The final communique of that Washington summit is littered with references to a European security and defence identity within NATO. It was to provide
	Xthe use of separable but not separate military capabilities in operations led by"—
	Europe
	Xand the participation of nations outside the alliance in operations such as IFOR".
	Why did we depart from that formula and allow the creation of autonomous capabilities outside NATO?
	The St. Malo declaration specifically departed from the XBerlin plus" proposals. It said that
	Xthe Union must have the capacity for autonomous action".
	This is the ESDP, not the ESDI.
	The Nice treaty annexes provide for EU military forces that are independent of and autonomous from NATO. They provide for planning for military operations outside NATO; that the EU will decide on military operations and only Xconsult" NATO; and that the EU will retain full political and strategic control throughout any operation independent of NATO.
	Since then, the EU has established an EU Political and Security Committee outside NATO, and an EU Military Committee, exactly mirroring and duplicating the NATO military committee, outside NATO. It has replicated the NATO military staffs in the EU military staffs and other organisations outside NATO, with a membership approaching 200 in a brand new building in Brussels. Finally, there is the commitment to a European rapid reaction force outside NATO, an embryo European army.
	I noticed the Secretary of State muttering through all that. Does he deny it? Will he address it at the NATO summit? We know that the four non-NATO EU members will be attending the NATO summit. When will the disagreement between NATO and the EU that the Government have created be resolved?

Jonathan Djanogly: Is it not surprising that, although we are on the eve of the NATO conference, the Secretary of State did not even mention the new European defence proposals?

Bernard Jenkin: Yes—particularly when it is an increasing source of anxiety in the American Administration and in NATO.

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend gave us a long list of new offices and institutions that have been created on behalf of the EU rapid reaction force. Has the new EU rapid reaction force led to the addition of a single soldier, warship or aeroplane to Europe's defence capability?

Bernard Jenkin: I do not think so, but no doubt someone will try to tell us that it has.

Jim Knight: But surely that is the point. The notion of a European army is a fallacious misinterpretation, as we are not talking about creating a new set of soldiers and capability; we are talking about existing capability. If, for example, the United States does not want to act in our back yard, the EU is capable of doing so. If a European army is a way of bringing France into the fold—it is currently a little semi-detached from NATO—that is a good thing. If it is a way of giving us a capability and cranking up European capability that has been so slow to develop under NATO, surely the hon. Gentleman must welcome it.

Bernard Jenkin: All those things could have been achieved within the XBerlin plus" framework. The ESDP adds nothing to that framework; it only creates capabilities outside NATO. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why it is a bad thing. First, it is wasteful of resources. It duplicates institutions and creates extra offices and ambassadors, more chauffeur-driven cars and more waste when we should be spending that money on additional military capability and not on bureaucracy.
	Secondly, in times of crisis military planners provide options to political masters, which is what they do at SHAPE. Options a, b and c have certain sets of forces with certain risk factors. That is what they do in NATO. Why do we need to replicate and duplicate that capability when it is so dangerous to do so?

Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I shall finish, if I may.
	Thirdly, we do not want the European Union to decide that it wants battalion x when D-SACEUR has already assigned battalion x to another operation in another theatre. If there is to be military planning, it should be conducted under a single organisation—NATO. I am quoting liberally from the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Joseph Ralston, so these are not problems of my imagining; they are real problems. I have met General Dieter Stockman, the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and he is deeply concerned about the potential for conflict in the event that there are conflicting objectives between the EU and NATO. It should be for NATO to deconflict that military planning. We are not against increased European capability and we are not against European capability being used independently of the United States. What we are opposed to is the EU creating a rival to NATO that will undermine NATO at a crucial point in the history of our world when we need Europe and the United States to work together.
	Finally, I want to address the new chapter of the strategic defence review that reiterates the Government's commitment to the expeditionary concept for our armed forces—a concept to which we are fully committed. I shall not dwell at length on overstretch, nor shall I engage in cheap political claptrap about increased expenditure in which the Secretary of State indulged. He will not admit the truth, which is that, even after three years, real terms expenditure will still be #1 billion a year less than the Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government. There is an anxiety that we are trying to obtain the same defence from less capability. I note that he skilfully timed the announcement of the decision about the short take off and vertical landing carrier capability just half an hour before he addressed the Labour party conference in Blackpool. The letter that he sent me told me that he was making that announcement for Xcommercial reasons". I shall not inquire what those reasons were, but it was awfully convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to be able to make such an announcement at such a time.
	Why did the right hon. Gentleman not also announce the plans for the existing surface fleet? Why did he not tell the Labour party conference that difficult choices had to be made? He has now written to me, a week later, to say that HMS Sheffield is to be withdrawn from service. I do not know whether he has plans to reduce the surface navy by 10 ships, but we get a stream of documents from the Government that tell us the good news but not the bad news. At least when we produced defence reviews, they were full of bad news and good news. That may have been unwelcome for the armed forces at the time, but at least it was honest. Why do not the Government give us the good news and the bad news? Why do they not let us have a proper debate about how we should spend the limited resources that we have for the armed forces, instead of smuggling out announcements as though these things were not really happening?
	We have the best armed forces in the world. They have a significant role to play internationally, particularly in the war against terrorism. Judging by the way in which the arguments tend to be conducted, however, it is small wonder that so many armed service men have become so cynical about politicians. The least that we should promise them is a proper debate. Moreover, the capabilities required for our defence and our national security, and to fulfil our international commitments, should be fully funded, and that is a commitment that we will continue to make.

Madam Deputy Speaker: May I remind right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches?

Malcolm Savidge: I wish to concentrate on the prospect of war with Iraq, but may I first briefly comment on the statement that the Secretary of State has just made about missile defence? He commented on how successful the recent tests had been, but he did not mention the fact that there had been considerable suspicion in the US media when it was announced that the tests carried out in recent months were to be conducted in conditions of much greater secrecy, and that it was suspected that that was because of a certain lack of realism. I realise that rogue state dictators are supposed to be irrational, but it is just conceivable that they would not phone up in advance to ensure that the interceptors knew about the timing and the trajectory of the missile, that there was good weather for the interception, that the quantity and quality of decoys was small and, in one case, that there was a signalling beacon on the front of the warhead.
	It should also be remembered that the Ministry of Defence's own White Paper, looking ahead 30 years, suggested that missile attack was a low risk, and that the US national intelligence estimate gave a series of cogent reasons to Congress why the method likely to be used by any so-called rogue dictator or terrorist trying to deliver weapons of mass destruction would be to smuggle them in, rather than launch a missile attack.
	It has been asked whether missile defence should be seen as similar to the star wars system. Of course it should not. The proponents of star wars were Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Perle, whereas the proponents of missile defence are Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Perle. The aims of star wars were ultimately to get complete military invulnerability for the United States on a unilateral basis. The aim of the new missile defence system is, as Donald Rumsfeld has said, ultimately to build towards full-spectrum dominance. Indeed, the connection between star wars and the war on Iraq is that they are both part of the same frightening, unilateralist agenda that we saw spelled out in the national security strategy.
	On the prospects of war with Iraq, the Prime Minister asked what was surely the most pertinent question: why now? We now have the dossier, the report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the report from the director of central intelligence in the United States. Looking at them, it is perfectly clear that they find no evidence of a link between Iraq and the events of 11 September. In fact, there is no cogent evidence in the reports of any association between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
	In the British document, human rights are mentioned. Undoubtedly, when we consider the atrocities that have been committed in Iraq, regime change has been vitally necessary for more than two decades. But what has changed since the 1980s, when Donald Rumsfeld was supplying aid and arms to Saddam Hussein, to convince him that it is now imperative for us to have a war with Saddam Hussein? Most of the atrocities occurred in the 1980s.
	What about the reports on missiles? It is suspected in the different reports that Saddam Hussein might have retained somewhere between two and two dozen al-Hussein missiles, and that he has probably developed a limited number of other missiles that might be able to go as far as 200 km. It is clear, however, that his missile forces are massively depleted compared with before the Gulf war, and that his missile strength is weak compared with that of many other countries.
	On biological and chemical weapons, the presumption is that Saddam Hussein has restarted his programmes and that he has probably managed to retain some biological and chemical resources from before the end of the inspections regime, and to develop more since. Again, however, it is believed that his stocks are vastly smaller than they were in the 1980s, when all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—including the United States and the United Kingdom—were busily helping him with supplies for missile technology and for biological and chemical weapons.

Llew Smith: Read the Scott report.

Malcolm Savidge: Exactly.
	What about nuclear weapons? Again, the reports are in agreement that Saddam Hussein does not yet have them. They also agree that he is several years away from getting them unless he obtains weapons-grade material.

Julian Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is typically generous.
	Surely the point is that Saddam Hussein was within two years of getting a nuclear weapon before the last war against Iraq, and that suicidal terrorist movements have grown up recently that might work in conjunction with him to undertake actions that were not so great a threat in the intervening years.

Malcolm Savidge: The CIA was asked to produce a report on whether it thought that Saddam Hussein was co-operating with terrorist organisations to supply them with weapons of mass destruction, and it came up with the conclusion that he was not.

Mark Francois: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Savidge: I must be careful, because every time I give way I lose time. I will see whether there is an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to come in later.
	On the supply of weapons-grade material, there is obviously a major proliferation problem, not least because of the risk that terrorist organisations could obtain it, and we need to work together on non-proliferation. Would Saddam Hussein have the intention to use weapons of mass destruction if he obtained them? He has undoubtedly used them in the past—he used poisoned gas against both the Iranians and his own people. Can he be deterred from using them again? The assumption of the US hard right is that he cannot, because they define him as a rogue state dictator, and they say that all such dictators are irrational and could not therefore be deterred by the thought of nuclear annihilation. That is the danger of trying to fit people into nice ideological definitions. The real Saddam Hussein may be—and, indeed, is—a homicidal maniac, but there is no reason to suppose that he is a suicidal maniac. In fact, he has had a murderous obsession with preserving his own life. During the Gulf war, Saddam was deterred from using chemical or biological weapons by the threat of overwhelming retaliation.
	There are concerns that there might be some new element of secret intelligence that is not being shared with us. I suspect that the evidence suggests that that is not the case. The main proponents of this war—Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and Bolton, for example—were advocating this war in 1998, when they were in opposition and not in receipt of the best military intelligence. They have been advocating it for years; it is not something that they have just thought up.
	The Prime Minister stated last month that we should not underestimate the extent to which
	X11 September had made a difference to the way that America views such things"—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 22.]
	It naturally had an immense effect on US public opinion, and we all respect that. However, we should contrast the Prime Minister's comments with the words of Condoleeza Rice in an interview with The New Yorker on 1 April. She said that shortly after the events of 11 September, she called together the leaders of the National Security Council and asked:
	XHow do you capitalise on these opportunities"
	fundamentally to change US policies? The US hawks have shamelessly exploited 11 September to promote a predetermined agenda.
	We should remember that project for the new American century, with which so many prominent people in the US Administration are closely involved, argued in the month of Bush's inauguration that if neither weapons of mass destruction nor Saddam Hussein existed, it would still be in the US strategic interest to invade Iraq. Surely that is the answer to the question, XWhy now?"
	Does anyone suppose that if Al Gore had been recognised as the winner of the presidential election we would now be considering war with Iraq? Does anyone believe that we would be contemplating such a step if George Bush had not chosen to appoint several extreme hawks to key posts in his Administration? Those hawks have advocated pre-emptive war against not only Iraq but various other countries.
	I do not doubt that the British Government regard war as a last resort or that they want inspections and disarmament, but I have grave doubts about whether all the members of the Bush Administration view war as a last resort. We are supposed to take comfort from George Bush's statement that going to war is not his first choice.
	The Prime Minister asked us to take comfort from the speech in Cincinnati, in which the President stated that disarmament was one of his objectives. However, that speech contained some worrying elements. The President said that Saddam was preparing to send unmanned aerial vehicles to attack the United States with biological and chemical weapons. I would have hoped that the President of the United States might have been aware of the existence of the Atlantic ocean and the US Air Force.
	The President also suggested that Saddam Hussein might be trying to supply nuclear weapons to terrorist organisations. First, his intelligence reports state that Saddam Hussein does not yet have nuclear weapons. Secondly, the report that George Tenet was reluctantly forced to release after he had been interviewed by the Senate made it clear that he estimated that Saddam was not supplying weapons and would not wish to do that. The circumstances under which he might use his weapons of mass destruction or supply them to terrorists or agents would be precisely if he was attacked and faced the possibility of his extinction.
	The President apparently ignores his intelligence advice to pursue a domestic political agenda. Worse, he is engaging in dangerous scaremongering. That can far too easily be the prelude to warmongering.
	We should recognise the dangers of war, as defined by former President Clinton in Blackpool. We should acknowledge that we need a United Nations resolution, but that it should be fair. There should be a second element to such a resolution. We should leave it not to the United States but to the United Nations to decide whether compliance occurs and whether there is a need for force.
	I am rushing rapidly to a conclusion—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Paul Keetch: I associate Liberal Democrat Members with the Secretary of State's words about members of the armed forces and the civil servants who work at the Ministry of Defence. I have been privileged to get to know them in recent years and they are a fine bunch of people.
	The events of recent days add a timely significance to today's debate. International terrorism has touched our lives again and continues to threaten world security. As we remember those who died last weekend from this country and elsewhere, and the appalling events of 11 September, we must redouble our efforts to root out the scourge of international terrorism.
	As the Secretary of State rightly said, we can effectively combat international terrorism only if we co-operate with other nations. The coalition that the Prime Minister and President Bush assembled so successfully last year remains our strongest weapon for defeating that threat. We live in an interconnected world where intelligence and police co-operation in third countries can save lives at home. No single nation can prevent all attacks against its citizens, but together we can isolate and defeat terrorist networks.
	The nature of the international terrorist threat has added to the tasks of our armed forces, not changed them. Deterrence, coercion or find-and-strike operations have not replaced the existing roles of the armed forces but simply added to them. The major defence tasks identified by the strategic defence review remain valid. Stabilisation, peace enforcement, defence diplomacy and commitments in the Balkans, Afghanistan and elsewhere demand our continued engagement.
	The Secretary of State said outside the House that prioritisation of capabilities will be necessary. That process clearly began with the series of cuts that were announced over the summer. We were told that the new chapter was supposed to rebalance, not replace the SDR in the light of a growing terrorist threat. However, I fear that it is being replaced.
	A steady stream of leaked documents and unannounced Government publications revealed a picture of cuts, revised targets and shortfalls. Many SDR requirements now appear unrealistic. The revision of the SDR seems to have been forced on the Government. Less than five months ago in May, we were assured that HMS Sheffield would be held in extended readiness until September 2004.
	Moreover, the SDR commits the Government to maintaining 32 warships until 2007. With HMS Nottingham probably beyond repair, and HMS Sheffield due to be withdrawn in two weeks, the number is down to 30. I know HMS Sheffield well; I spent 10 days on her as part of my time with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, with which many hon. Members have been involved. The ship was in the Caribbean carrying out anti-drug-running activities. It is neither the first nor the last ship to do that.Only 10 days ago, HMS Grafton seized $100 million of high-grade cocaine. That ship plays an important role in the defence of the United Kingdom. Yet the Government have cut our West Indies guardships.
	Is the Secretary of State prepared to take a hard look at items that no longer add to our capability and prioritise in favour of critical capabilities? What exactly does he consider to be critical capabilities?
	The Liberal Democrats welcomed the announcement that confirmed the designs of the future aircraft carrier and the joint strike fighter aircraft. It was a wise decision to choose a design that offers greater operational flexibility for the future. However, it is less encouraging that the decision may have been made to meet an in-service date of 2012. Procurement policy should not be made in that way.
	If the Government had not been in such a hurry to retire the Sea Harriers, the urgency of the capability gap would have been less pressing. Are there other imminent cuts about which the Secretary of State would like to inform the House? Is there anything else up his sleeve?
	We view Britain's defence role in the world as undiminished. The responsibilities are many, at home and abroad. If we are to fulfil the role outlined by the SDR, we must commit the necessary resources to our military. If we cannot provide the armed forces with the equipment, pay and conditions that they need to do the job that we ask of them, the UK must accept greater limitations on the defence tasks that we undertake.
	We must improve recruitment and retention rates in our armed forces. We must stem the loss of critical staff from organisations such as the defence medical services. We must reach a position where we no longer need to waste money on temporary housing or temporary doctors. We must ensure that our armed forces and their families are well looked after, with fair pay and equitable pension rights. Failure to fix the nuts and bolts of our armed forces will put future operations in jeopardy.
	What role should Britain play in the world? The SDR acknowledged the consensus that has been supported by Opposition parties in recent years. It envisaged a role for Britain as a major military power with a duty to contribute to NATO, UN and EU tasks, commensurate with our position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. That role has grown in ways anticipated by the SDR, which emphasised the global nature of Britain's interests, of the 10 million British citizens living abroad as well as Britain's overseas territories. The SDR said that a global capability remained necessary. We believe that it is necessary. We believe also that the SDR represents a broad consensus. It set targets for policies and the implementation of objectives. However, if the foundations of the SDR remain valid, the policies in place to implement it need to be revised.
	With procurement dates continuing to slip, with retention rates dropping and with what appears to be an ad hoc announcement of cuts in aircraft and warship numbers, the SDR is parting from our armed forces in terms of day-to-day reality. We must be assured that the commitments made by the Government at the time of the SDR—they were broadly supported by both sides of the House—can be sustained.
	I shall say a few words about arms exports. Our troops are deployed abroad to control instability and to contribute to peace. We must ensure that our actions in other spheres—for example, arms exports—do not undermine our troops' efforts. I agree with the Secretary of State's recent comments that competition over time should be a consideration in defence procurement decisions. However, in his exhortation to the defence industry to export more and in committing the taxpayer to facilitating market access, the Government may be focusing on domestic concerns that are related to global security. Even today, we have seen Lord Bach and Prince Andrew promoting British arms exports with taxpayers' money in the middle east. That was at a fair attended by Iraq. Am I alone in feeling a need for caution?
	Arms exports are a major source of global instability when they are diverted from their intended destination and use. Therefore, rigorous end-use monitoring of British exports is vital. I believe that the only true way to minimise the damaging consequences of irresponsible arms transfers, such as the arms-to-Iraq issue, which was discussed earlier, is to have prior parliamentary scrutiny on a case-by-case basis.

John Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman is making a most important point. Does he not agree that it is infinitely better for British interests and for the promotion of the values that our armed forces have sustained that British companies should sell weapons to states that require them for their self-defence, rather than that those states should turn to other suppliers such as Belarus, Iraq and rogue regimes? The training and support that our personnel provide in the continued collaboration that follows an arms agreement is most useful in the longer term.

Paul Keetch: I agree entirely. However, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that in the past the problem has been that we have sold arms to regimes that have come back to bite us. We know, for example, that arms were sold to Argentina and were used against the taskforce. We actually supported and supplied arms to Saddam Hussein. We even supplied in the past to Osama bin Laden. We must be careful about the company that we keep. We need to continue to examine carefully the issue of arms exports.
	Let me move on to alliances. We maintain our forces for the defence of the nation. However, we also have commitments to our allies in NATO, the EU and the Commonwealth. The SDR acknowledged that Britain's
	Xeconomic and political future is as part of Europe"
	and that
	XBritain's security is indivisible from that of Europe."
	I agree. However, the integration of European defence capabilities has not been progressed far enough. The UK has indeed led the way in raising defence expenditure, and we have been told that France followed suit. However, progress on meeting the Helsinki headline goals has been painfully slow. Co-operation within Europe on research, procurement, logistics support and even on intelligence could promise increased effectiveness and cost savings. It is long overdue.
	Next month's NATO summit in Prague will discuss precisely the same issues that face Europe: a NATO response to terrorism, the creation of a rapid response force and the standardisation of equipment for interoperability. Those are sensible goals for NATO and for the EU under the framework of the European security and defence policy.
	During my recent trip to NATO headquarters, all the officials whom I met, including the Secretary General, stressed the importance of the ESDP to NATO. Lord Robertson also stressed the importance of resolving the dispute between Greece and Turkey over the European use of NATO assets. What does the Secretary of State have in mind? Will he ensure that the disagreement does not lead to progress on the ESDP faltering?
	I turn to Iraq and the comments of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). We must accept that there is a diverging range of opinions among all parties in the House. Indeed, many former senior Conservative Members—for example, Lord Hurd, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and John Major—have said that they disagree with, or have some concerns about, the current Conservative party leadership on Iraq. It is not only those people, who the present leadership of the Conservative party have tried to airbrush out of history; in the debate that took place on 24 September, many Conservative Back-Benchers made eloquent speeches that did not fully echo the approach taken by those on their Front Bench. I have in mind the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), and there were others.
	The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), who sadly is not in his place, criticises Liberal Democrat Members for asking questions at a time when British troops might be committed. I say to him that it is exactly at the time when our troops are committed that we should be asking questions. That is what opposition is. Had Opposition parties in 1940 blindly followed the Government of the day in military expeditions, the House would not have challenged Neville Chamberlain in the way that it did and his Government would not have been replaced by the coalition Government who were led so wonderfully by Winston Churchill. Now is the time to ask important questions.
	If the UN or the international community request British help in neutralising threats to global security, we must be there. However, to be consistent with international law, every other reasonable political and diplomatic option must be exhausted before military action commences. It is not correct to posit a choice between dealing with Iraq and dealing with al-Qaeda. They are linked. Any action in Iraq must be seen in the context of a wider campaign against terrorism.
	The question that we must ask, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) did so eloquently on Wednesday, is whether possible action in Iraq will increase or decrease the likelihood of further terrorist attacks throughout the world. Whether to use force in the absence of an immediate terrorist attack is one of the most difficult decisions that this country may be asked to make for a generation. We must be sure that any decisions reflect the will of the people.
	Let us have a new constitutional innovation. Let us have, perhaps, a new war powers Act. Let us abolish the Prime Minister's power to use the Royal Prerogative to send Britain's forces to war without having to seek parliamentary approval. The President of the United States has sought and gained a mandate—

Julian Lewis: May I give the hon. Gentleman a scenario to consider? Let us suppose that the Prime Minister is in possession of top-secret intelligence information that he cannot share with the House. What would then happen in the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described?

Paul Keetch: I know and understand that some Members believe that it should be the Government's responsibility. However, I believe that in normal circumstances—certainly those that we are discussing in terms of Iraq—there should be a substantive vote. If top-secret intelligence were available to the Prime Minister suggesting that an attack might be imminent, surely he could discuss it under normal Privy Council terms with members of the leading Opposition parties and then seek their approval. In circumstances where we are deploying British forces, I do not see why there should not be a substantive vote in the House.
	When we send our forces into the field they have the right to be confident that the country backs them. It is important that they fight with the knowledge that it is Parliament that has asked them to go, and that it is we who bear the responsibilities. The President of the United States has sought and received such a mandate from Congress; I do not see why our Prime Minister should be any different. As elected Members, we are answerable to the people of Britain. A new war powers Act would lay the mantle of accountability where it correctly lies: with Parliament. It could only enhance our democracy and people's faith in our democratic institutions.

Nigel Beard: If two antagonists both deploy military forces for attack, the military balance is unstable because either side might gain an advantage from striking first. That was the nature of the balance of strategic nuclear weapons during the cold war. The concept of mutually assured destruction is still the basis of the strategic balance of offensive weapons between the old cold war antagonists. However, a missile might be fired in error or a malicious or deranged officer may become convinced that the circumstances are right for first strike to gain an advantage. Either possibility could trigger a devastating response that no Government intended. To address those and other problems, Presidents Bush and Putin, to their credit, recently agreed to cut their strategic nuclear weapons by two thirds, but that still leaves 2,000 nuclear missiles on each side, plus weapons owned by the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and so on. When the use of any one of those weapons would be a disaster for the world, that remains a frightening arsenal.
	Let us imagine a notable success in arms reduction negotiations so that both sides have no more than a few hundred nuclear weapons each. How do they get below that number? Any move to reduce towards zero will raise suspicions that side A will secretly retain a capability and so leave side B exposed if it complies by reducing to zero. The inevitable suspicion will mean that neither side will ever voluntarily reduce weapons to zero. It was because of similar suspicions that mutual and balanced forced reductions of conventional forces could not be agreed in the past.
	The nuclear non-proliferation treaty was intended to limit the spread of such weapons outside the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China. It has not succeeded. India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea all possess nuclear weapons. That encourages states with which they may come into conflict to acquire them too. Containment is a vain hope, especially when both nuclear and ballistic technology are transferred between states or by the migration of experts from the Soviet Union.
	A missile defence system, such as the one under discussion, may provide a solution to those problems. First, it would enable a strategic balance to be achieved by means of defensive weapons that is essentially stable, unlike the inherent instability that goes with a balance of offensive weapons. Secondly, the risk of a nuclear exchange being triggered in error by an insubordinate or maverick custodian would be eliminated. Thirdly, a missile defence shield, available to both sides, would provide a climate for safe negotiation towards zero arsenals of nuclear weapons. Fourthly, it would give direct protection against the malicious acts of rogue states. Fifthly, if countries can be offered a place under a missile defence umbrella, they have everything to gain from signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
	What then are the obstacles to all that becoming a reality? A major objection is that the missile defence system proposed today is no more than a rehash of President Reagan's star wars concept. Not only was star wars technologically impossible to achieve, it would have made the world a more dangerous place. It would have nullified the deterrent effect of the Soviet Union's strategic weapons, so creating the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against the star wars system or of an arms race. Those objections were, and remain, valid, but that is not the missile defence system that the United States now proposes. The concept is of a system that could withstand an attack of up to 100 missiles at most. It could not therefore wipe out Russia's ability to respond to a United States attack, so it would not upset the current strategic balance. On that basis, the Russian Government have agreed to it being an exception to the anti-ballistic missile treaty between themselves and the United States of America.
	An anxiety that prejudiced opinion against missile defence proposals in Britain and the rest of Europe was that missile defences would apply only to north America. Even though Fylingdales radar station in Yorkshire would be essential to US missile defence, it was thought that the UK would not be under the umbrella and would be vulnerable to whatever attack the US feared. The United States Government have since made it clear that they envisage any missile defence system extending to NATO, Europe and, potentially, to Russia. Thus those anxieties are overcome.
	The outstanding question now is what diplomatic and technological conditions are required to achieve the various benefits of missile defence in practice. Diplomatically, there must be agreement from the beginning that protection will be given to north America, Europe and Russia. Any scheme designed solely to protect north America would divide and possibly destroy the NATO alliance. Unless Russia is included, there would be no incentive for Russia to negotiate strategic arms reductions below currently agreed levels, and the stability of Russian democracy and European security could be threatened.
	The second diplomatic requirement is a willingness to extend the protective umbrella to any state that has signed and adhered to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
	China is a special case. With an estimated 20 or so ballistic missiles available soon, China has a credible deterrent against attack by either the USA or Russia which would be eliminated by the missile defence system envisaged. There would therefore be an incentive for China to continue building nuclear missiles until it was sure that it could break through missile defences. The whole of Asia would then be under threat from China, and Asian countries would be induced to retain or acquire nuclear weapons. A way of recognising China's strategic interests would be to offer it the protection of the anti-missile umbrella on condition that it did not expand its nuclear arsenal further and on the understanding that it would join strategic arms reduction talks between Russia and America at the same time as Britain and France.
	The ultimate obstacle to the missile defence concept could be the difficulty and expense of developing reliable technology. Some commentators have pronounced the proposed scheme to be technologically impossible to achieve. No doubt they draw some of that certainty from the abandonment of star wars because the technology proved too difficult to develop. But that system, which aimed to intercept several thousand missiles at once faultlessly, had an infinitely more complex task than intercepting 100 or fewer. Some of the technology, such as sensors, radars, computing, communications, is not new. Some research and development is needed, but given clear objectives for the development programme, experts, such as the RAND Corporation, who have assessed what is needed, do not see the technology as out of reach.
	The important question is how development and production will be organised. If the whole missile defence system were to fall under the technological hegemony of the USA, then the strategic concept would most likely be rejected by European countries and Russia on that ground alone. Co-development and co-production by NATO countries and Russia, under American leadership, must spread the technological and economic benefits equitably and, at the same time, build confidence. Negotiated co-operation in design, development and production will be as essential to the success of the project as co-operation in deployment.
	I urge the Government to persuade the United States Government of a strategic role and purpose of missile defence similar to the role that I have attempted to outline; to persuade other NATO allies of that role and purpose and to engage their active commitment to the project; and to join the United States in establishing arrangements by which NATO allies and Russia may co-operate in designing, developing and producing the required technology. The British Government have a pivotal role to play in achieving all that, which I hope will become a new dimension of United Kingdom foreign and defence policy. If we can achieve a missile defence system on those terms, it will be an infinitely more precious legacy for future generations than a world littered with nuclear missiles that might be used at any time.

Hugh Robertson: As I drew my remarks together for today's debate, I realised with some horror that it was 21 years last month since I joined the services. A number of issues of huge strategic importance face the defence world today, including the reform and future structure of NATO and the whole question of defence procurement. However, I shall look at the immediate threat that we face, the way that it has evolved and the possible responses to meet it.
	In 1981, when I joined the Army, and for much of the following 10 years, defence policy was governed by the threat of a Soviet onslaught on the central front. As adjutant of a tank regiment in 1989, I overflew the positions that our tanks would occupy during a Soviet invasion. Against this certain backdrop, other conflicts occurred, generally as a result of the decolonisation of European empires at the end of the second world war. Very occasionally, the two superpowers came close to collision. The Berlin blockade in 1948, the Korean war, the Cuban missile crisis and the Vietnam war are a few examples, but British defence policy remained governed largely by the certainties of the cold war.
	The fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 changed all that. The hoped-for peace dividend failed to materialise and the new world order, stripped of the framework provided by the cold war, rapidly became a much more dangerous place. Sir Anthony Parsons, our ambassador at the UN, put it brilliantly when he described the transition as one
	Xfrom Cold War to hot peace".
	Great Britain and the west struggled to contain the fallout from the decolonisation of the Soviet Union, particularly in areas that the Russians refer to as the near abroad—those independent states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia and other parts of the world where nationalism took a hold. An analysis of this period reveals the origins of many of the problems that we face today. For the first time, the UN perceived the need to become more dominant, proactive and responsive. The United States, the one remaining superpower, began for the first time to examine whether it should go it alone, whether it should act as the world's policeman or whether it should react only when its own territorial integrity was threatened. We saw the first challenges to that previously most sacred of cows: the integrity of states within their existing frontiers. As a consequence of that and developments in the world of media and communications, a number of shadowy organisations looked beyond and across their own borders for the first time. We also saw the first signs of the doctrine of pre-emptive action, which was first trailed in the form we understand it today in the UN agenda for peace in 1993. Questions of command and control of forces in the field allied to other countries and of course money also began to rear their heads.
	Although many of the defence issues that we face today had their origins then, the events of 11 September probably mark the start of a third post-war defence era in which shadowy terrorist movements and rogue states pose asymmetric threats to established democracies. If that were not complicated enough, it has also become clear that this new threat is itself changing and evolving. The horrific events in Bali this week have shown how the threat posed by al-Qaeda and its associates has itself evolved since 11 September and the war in Afghanistan.
	How are we to combat this new threat? The first unpalatable truth must be that we have to increase defence spending. I was much taken by a quote from Major-General Fulton published in the October edition of the RUSI Journal, which said:
	XIf the question becomes what do we not need to do as a result of 11 September, operations in Afghanistan and the publication of the new chapter, the answer is that we have not found it yet."
	The United States has recognised this and increased defence spending by 14 per cent. However, before 11 September there were signs that the United States may eventually turn inwards and that will surely place a larger burden on Europe. As has already been said, the European rapid reaction force has identified 150 basic defence capabilities, but estimates are that 40 of those will be outstanding by the end of next year. Our own Prime Minister has very proper ambitions for Africa that will inevitably involve troops and more money. Increasingly we as a nation are starting to deploy troops not because our vital interests are threatened, but because we choose to do so, as we did in East Timor and Sierra Leone. There is also the question of credibility. We all agree that the threat from international terrorists and weapons of mass destruction is very real. If we are serious about confronting it, it will surely cost money.
	We need to face the fact that one of our most crucial weapons in the war against terrorism will be intelligence. We in Britain first learned that lesson in the 1950s and 1960s in places such as Malaysia and Kenya, but it is truer now than ever. In the age of modern communication, the means of gathering and collating intelligence have changed beyond recognition and it is vital that our security services are fully funded and properly integrated with those of our allies. The development of our armed forces to meet the new threat will also place a heavy burden on the equipment budget. I do not propose to list all the areas where we need new equipment, but just to name a few. They include the C4ISTAR, the new deep strike capabilities, strategic air transport and, crucially, an integrated land-based air defence system for the UK homeland.
	Clearly, to meet this new threat, the scope of defence policy needs to widen. Responses will no longer be exclusively military, but also political, diplomatic, humanitarian, economic, financial and legal. Legality is crucial. Everyone in the Chamber would surely agree that the UK Government must always operate within the remit of international law, despite the fact that our enemies almost certainly never will do. That clearly points to an even greater role for the UN. Its resolutions confer international legitimacy. The UN may not be perfect, but in this new era it is all that we have got.
	We also need to develop our home defence plans. The threat from asymmetric attack is clear and we need to develop effective responses that integrate local government, health authorities, emergency services and the Territorial Army. However, throughout all this we must not forget the importance of conventional warfare. It remains the case that forces trained for high-intensity conflict can always adapt to low intensity, but never vice versa. Conventional warfare also arises very rapidly as we have seen recently in the Gulf and may possibly see in Iraq.
	It would be wrong not to touch briefly on Iraq and I wholly support the Government's stance. They were right to support the US Administration at this early stage, not only to influence policy, but to create a believable threat of force in order to apply the maximum strategic coercion on the regime in Baghdad. I certainly agree that the correct channel is the UN, as it will confer international legitimacy on the operation. The resolutions on Iraq must be robust and enforceable, but if the UN handles the issue correctly, it will do its reputation a power of good and, in this new uncertain era, send a powerful message about the standards expected of organisations and states in the modern world.
	I said earlier that I entirely supported the Government's stance on international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, but they must make clear the linkage between the two issues. I fully appreciate the need to protect scarce intelligence resources. Of course, none of us has access to that information. The Government must believe that if Saddam Hussein is allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction he will either use them himself or give them to terrorist organisations to use against us and that link needs to be made clearer.
	I conclude with a few words about our service men and women. I have highlighted the enormous changes in the defence world in the 21 years since I joined and something of the threat that we currently face. One thing that has certainly not changed is the quality and commitment of the young men and women who serve in our armed forces. Our thoughts should always be with them and their families who give them so much support. After all, we will look to them first in the difficult and uncertain days ahead.

Llew Smith: A recent Ministry of Defence report revealed that the countries of the world now spend $772 billion on their so-called defences—or, more accurately, on preparing for war. The United States spends $400 billion of that on its war machine, and the United Kingdom spends #24 billion, the equivalent of $36 billion, for the same purpose.
	One would have thought that, now that there are enough weapons to destroy the world many times over, the nations of the world would call a halt to such expenditure, but they have not done so. Indeed, the United States has announced that it will spend a further $30 billion a year. Do the people of that country, or its Government, feel that they are any safer in the knowledge that they can inflict even more destruction on this beautiful planet of ours?
	Not to be outsmarted—if not outgunned—the United Kingdom has also decided to increase its so-called defence expenditure, by #3.5 billion by 2005–06. Not so long ago, the Prime Minister rightly reminded us that Africa is a
	Xscar on the conscience of the world".
	It will continue to be a scar as long as we continue to prioritise investment in weapons of war rather than investment in people.
	Is it not ironic, or indeed obscene, that the Government can find money to increase the war machine massively, but cannot find money—or are unwilling to provide it—to compensate the victims of atomic tests in the Pacific in the 1950s? A letter sent to MPs by Ian Anderson, an American attorney at law acting on behalf of the American atomic veterans, said
	XThe UK's policy of denial surely cannot continue indefinitely . . . the Queen has paradoxically approved of medals honouring the New Zealand servicemen who served at the Christmas Island nuclear tests with UK servicemen, yet no such recognition is accorded to her own troops."
	That cannot be right.
	The New Zealand and Fiji Governments have now recognised that compensation and, indeed, proper pensions are necessary for those who suffered radiation exposure during the tests. The US Government's department of veterans' affairs has announced that it will recognise five more cancers as attributable to exposures to atmospheric radiation for pension payment purposes. That brings the number of cancers recognised by the US Government as attributable to nuclear test radiation to 21. Why, on this occasion, are we not standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States in responding positively to what was a great tragedy?
	I believe that we should do that, and I assumed that we would, because back in 1990 the present Prime Minister supported a private Member's Bill demanding compensation for the victims of the atomic tests. We now know from evidence produced in the past few weeks that the people affected—destroyed—by those tests were not just the soldiers involved but their children and grandchildren. Obviously they need compensation, as do those suffering from Gulf war syndrome.
	I was brought up to believe that socialism was the language of priorities, but in this instance it seems that the Government are working on the basis of a different definition. They prioritise expenditure on developing weapons of mass destruction or war, yet cannot find a tiny proportion of that money to compensate victims of the creation of those weapons, or indeed victims of participation in wars.
	Over the weekend, I had the privilege of addressing a national demonstration in Plymouth by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament against Trident and the refitting of that weapon at Devonport. We know that Trident has cost successive Governments some #15 billion. We also know that its annual operating costs are now some #280 million a year. We handed a petition to the Ministry of Defence protesting against Trident and its refit, and as we did so we thought of the many better ways of spending the money. It could be spent on health, education, better homes or responding to the tragedy of countries such as Africa.
	The real cost, however, is not just financial; it also relates to all the skills, talents and creativity of the work force employed to produce Trident. My thoughts drifted from the financial cost to the cost in terms of the loss of skills that could be better used in the production of socially useful goods and services if we are to begin to plan for a world at peace rather than a world preparing for war—a world in which we really do begin to turn swords into ploughshares.
	Yet the ultimate cost of weapons of mass destruction such as Trident consists not merely of the money spent and the skills wasted, but of the death and destruction that will follow its use. Is it not ironic that if Trident were ever used it would destroy not just the skills but the lives of the people who produced that weapon of war? I do not think that that is the reward that they would expect for their labours.
	We are led to believe that President Bush and our Prime Minister are so opposed to weapons of mass destruction that they are willing to go to war with Iraq on the issue. Can the Minister explain this to me? If those Governments are so opposed to weapons of mass destruction, how can the United States maintain thousands upon thousands of nuclear warheads? Perhaps the Minister will also explain how the United Kingdom can maintain its vast nuclear arsenal. The Government should justify the number of nuclear warheads that they deploy and clarify the circumstances in which they might be used, because they have said that they are willing to use them.
	Is it not an act of hypocrisy for us to oppose the possession by others of weapons of mass destruction, while justifying our possession of such weapons? Perhaps we do so because our weapons of mass destruction are nice, while those supposedly used by Saddam Hussein are nasty. Is it also true that the weapons that the west has sold to countries such as Iraq, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and India, to name but a few, are friendly weapons of mass destruction? If so, how is it that they are friendly weapons when the west sells them to such countries as Iraq, but become so nasty that we are willing to go to war over them when those countries threaten us with them or use them against us—or even when we believe that they possess the weapons?
	While we are on the subject of Iraq, the House should not forget that this country is legally committed to nuclear disarmament under article 6 of the 1970 treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, most recently re-endorsed two years ago. If we expect Iraq to submit to its international obligations to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction, we should also respect our obligations to do so. As for the United States, it still refuses to ratify the chemical weapons convention or the comprehensive test ban treaty, to approve the creation of the International Criminal Court or to abide by the non-proliferation treaty. When it makes a gesture to abide by that treaty and reduce its nuclear arsenal, it invariably relates to weapons that are redundant. It then proceeds to replace those weapons with weapons that are more deadly and sophisticated.
	It is acceptable for the west to sell weapons to other countries, no matter how evil their regimes. Those countries can then use them to gas their own people, as Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds, without the smallest of protests from the west. No matter how great the suffering, the Government tell us that arms sales are good for our economy. I invite the Minister to read the recent publication by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade called, XThe Employment Consequences of a Ban on Arms Exports". It demonstrates that at present only 0.3 per cent. of total United Kingdom employment is dependent on military equipment exports. Military equipment investment is capital, not labour, intensive. As always, the only people who gain are the arms manufacturers and dealers, and that has been true throughout our history.
	Sadly, arms sales are also a corruption of democracy. That is clearly shown in a recent written reply by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) published last month, in which he stated:
	XInformation held by the United Kingdom Government on companies and individuals involved in the export of military supplies is commercial in confidence and is withheld under Sections 13 and 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."—[Official Report, 19 September 2002; Vol.390, c. 312W.]
	Can the Minister justify this secrecy?
	I shall conclude with something that, with a little help from Ministers, may have a positive outcome. We all know that 16 years ago Mordechai Vanunu was put in an Israeli jail. He has been rotting there and for 11 of those years in solitary confinement. On 29 October he comes up for parole. I want the Government to make all efforts to back this application from a brave man. It will not cost as much as two aircraft carriers or 150 state-of-the-art strike aircraft, but it would be worth so much more.

John Wilkinson: I do not know whether you have noticed from the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the shorter your limits on Back Bench speeches, the more prolix those on the Front Bench seem to become. We were regaled with a wonderful example of the benefits of brevity by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), who demonstrated in an extremely thoughtful speech some of the challenges that face our armed forces and society in the global war against terrorism. He covered most of the points and I shall try to fill in some of the gaps.
	We have all learned from the Bali experience perhaps more than any other, although we learned it to some degree from the horrendous events of 11 September in the United States, that this is genuinely a global war. We are all in it together. I know that some of my constituents are mourning at this very moment, and that will be replicated throughout the House. It is incumbent on us to ensure that the policies we promote will eradicate the tremendous evils of terrorism. There can be no compromise with terrorism.
	The methods we use have to span a wide spectrum, including intelligence, police procedures, the justice system, the ending of money laundering and the evolution of military assets and tactics to match. On the judicial question, I am shocked that it would appear that some countries in Europe may not be willing to extradite terrorist suspects to the United States of America on the grounds that if they are found guilty of the charges that could be preferred against them, they would be subject to the US death penalty. We in the free world must all co-operate wholeheartedly. There can be no such inhibitions to our co-operation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who spoke at length and wisely, brought to our attention, as did the Leader of the Opposition at Question Time, the matter of proscribing Jemaah Islamiyah under the terms of the Terrorist Act 2000. The case is not unique. I have had cause to bring to the attention of the House the situation in Colombia. Our armed forces, the special air service regiment, to a small but significant extent has given advice to the armed forces of Colombia who are fighting a desperately important war against a vicious guerrilla movement, FARC, and to some degree the ELN. There have been more casualties in the conflict there than ever have been caused to date by al-Qaeda. FARC is using the drugs trade to finance its operations and to acquire its weaponry. Yet our Government do not proscribe FARC, and nor does the European Union. Nor, to my knowledge, do they proscribe any Latin American terrorist organisation, apart from the self-defence groups in Colombia. Those groups would not operate if the terrorists who are threatening democracy and the rule of law were made inoperative. It is important that we show a united front—we and our European Union colleagues, who are just as bad as we are in this matter. FARC, ELN, in Peru the Sendero Luminoso and in Chile the Frente Manuel Rodriguez should all be proscribed organisations, as should Jemaah Islamiyah.
	I must refer the House to certain aspects of European policy vis-a-vis Iraq and the implications of the divisions to which my hon. Friend alluded: the divisions that exist within what should be a wholly united coalition of western democracies. The United Kingdom says, XYes, we are prepared to take military action against Iraq". There is not too much conditionality in our response. The Federal Republic of Germany appears to say, XNo, in no circumstance whatever are we prepared to undertake military operations against Iraq". The French position is more nuanced as they are hoping for a United Nations resolution, or in their case resolutions, which will have widespread support and which they can back. If a European security and defence policy is to have any import, any meaning, and if the European members of our alliance have such disparate positions over such a crucial issue as the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, what future is there for the more complex situations in the Balkans, the near east and elsewhere? We have to work on concerting our position.

Andrew Rosindell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Wilkinson: I will not because time is short.
	In this regard I am concerned by the duality of responsibility between the European Union's so-called High Representative, the former Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, and the External Affairs Commissioner. The Front-Bench spokesman rightly reminded us of the dangers that can exist to the effectiveness of our response in a crisis, if the respective staffs of the European Union and of NATO come up with different views and options. That could confuse what is already probably a difficult situation to respond to. If there are to be differences of opinion between the External Affairs Commissioner and the High Representative, it bodes doubly ill. If the European Union is to pursue this path, I urge that it must do so under the stewardship of the High Representative because at least he will be answerable to the Council, and it is the Council who are the representatives of national Governments, and the national Governments who are providing the armed forces and making the decisions about any European military response.
	ESDP must have a responsibility to combat terrorism—something that has not been spelled out in the Petersberg tasks. I spelled it out in my report to the Assembly of the Western European Union on the military means to combat terrorism, which was passed by the Assembly in June. I earnestly hope that if ESDP is to be significant, this nettle will be grasped. Par excellence, if the ESDP is about peacemaking, those who are in the business of brutal murder and imposing their will by terrorist methods should be enemy number one.
	We—the national parliamentarians who vote the funds and supply the Defence Ministers who have to make the decisions—should provide the scrutiny of ESDP. This has been discussed in the convention and my earnest hope is that because of the crucial link that we represent between the people whose taxes provide the resources that we allocate to defence, we will have the duty of scrutiny. In so doing, we should take the crucial decisions about mobility and, for example, the tankers that we need, as well as the A330/200, and other decisions in relation to the ability to project power and to be more flexible and effective.
	In conclusion, I repeat the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, who said that the quality of our armed forces in these enterprises is crucial. I ask the Government to come to the House and say why, at Deepcut, there seems to be a fundamental breakdown in discipline. Officers' heads should roll and there should not be such a succession of scandals and suicides. It indicates to me that something is fundamentally wrong. Elsewhere our armed forces do us credit. This episode does not.

Paul Flynn: In June, a group of scientists from America packed a container with uranium, loaded it on a train in Austria and sent it through Turkey and across the sea to America. They landed it on the American coast, and it is now lodged in the heart of New York. They did that to make the point that although the container went through border controls and tests—it was active uranium, so it should have been detected—no one detected it.
	We should ask what is the greatest risk. There is no safe course ahead, but we must find the least perilous course. We all felt a chill of fear when we saw the pictures of the chemical weapons protection suit that has now been issued to frontline health service workers and when we heard that they have had smallpox injections.
	One of my worst experiences during my 15 years as a Member of Parliament was when someone from the city of Newport came back from the Gulf war in a body bag. As a supporter of the Gulf war and of all the other military actions taken by the present and previous Governments, I find myself deeply unhappy with the present proposals because we are taking the wrong course.
	What frightens me, as I am sure it frightens everyone, is the terrible nature of biological weapons, which make no distinction between warrior and civilian, young and old, Christian or Muslim. There could be terrible destruction, with diseases that have been dormant since medieval times being unleashed. We know that Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons, but what is the risk? I believe that the greatest or only risk—the only conceivable situation in which he is likely to use the weapons—will arise if there is a military invasion of his country. We have heard today that he is a wicked, evil man. He is indeed, but he is not a suicidal maniac.
	Every time that Saddam Hussein has attacked a group of people, he has done so in the certainty in his own mind that he was going to win. When he attacked the Kurds in Halabjah, he knew that the rest of the world was not interested and would not help them. When he attacked Iran, he was again certain that the Ayatollah was a weak leader whose country was in chaos, and he was sure that he would have an easy victory. He attacked Kuwait in the belief that the American ambassador had given him an assurance that the Americans would not intervene. Under what circumstances would this man, the great survivor, attack another state? Under what circumstances would he use his weapons of mass destruction?
	I do not know of any plausible scenario except one, and it is the one that we are walking straight into. If he is defeated and is in one of his palaces, like Hitler in the Berlin bunker, he might use his biological weapons—not by using his ramshackle missiles, which are useless and cannot be sent far, but by doing a deal with his ideological antithesis, al-Qaeda. In those circumstances, he might well do that, and the horror that we all dread might take place.
	The change in the world situation resulted not from what happened on 11 September but from the election of George W. Bush. We should examine the right-wing fundamentalists who are now in government in America and their plans for a new American century, which were drawn up before they took office. They are now fulfilling those plans, which did not start last September. They started when Bush was elected, with a rogue state creation programme.
	When Bush took office, the situation between North and South Korea was one of rapprochement. It was going very well, but George W. Bush immediately cancelled a meeting that had been arranged by Madeleine Albright. He tried to turn that rapprochement into antagonism. A mythology was spread about the danger of missiles from North Korea hitting Seattle, when the North Koreans had great difficulty in targeting its missiles on South Korea. He made sure that the situation deteriorated.
	The position in respect of Iran was an improving one over many years. There were visits from representatives from western countries, but President Bush has made sure that the situation has grown far worse. With Iraq, there was stability for almost 10 years. Iraq had been contained by the bombing programme, which I fully supported. The inspectors left because they were fed up; they believed that they were close to finding significant weapons, but left because they believed that there was going to be bombing of the sites that they could not inspect. There might have been some justification for action then, but there is no justification now.
	The plans from PNAC—the project for the new American century—make alarming reading. They were drawn up not last year, but in 2000. One of them speaks of the American armed forces as
	Xthe cavalry on the new American frontier."
	The blueprint supports a document written by Wolfowitz and Cheney—Pearl and Rumsfeld are also involved—that says that the US must
	Xdiscourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
	They talk of regime change not only in Iraq but in Syria and Iran. However, their greatest target is China, which they see as the next state that might challenge them as a new world power.
	In an extraordinary speech, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) suggested that we could become a vassal state of America by abandoning a dearly cherished policy of this country, and of almost all Council of Europe countries—our opposition to capital punishment. Suddenly, we should accept that.
	The Americans have said that they regard the United Kingdom as
	Xthe most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership."
	That was and is Bush's policy. He has used the dreadful events of 11 September to accelerate that policy. Most people have forgotten the events that occurred before then.
	The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood made an interesting point, although we would take his expert views on South America a little more seriously if he had not been an apologist for certain aspects of Pinochet's actions. The hon. Gentleman referred to Colombia. The United States' attempt to impose its failed policies of drug prohibition on a vassal state had dreadful results, leading to continuous chaos and at least three armies, two of which were funded by drugs. What if we apply that policy to Afghanistan? We went in because the Taliban were protecting al-Qaeda. That was a justified objective, and it was successful up to a point. However, another objective was to eliminate the drugs trade from Afghanistan. At the time, as the United Nations has reported, the Taliban had reduced by 92 per cent. the growth of poppies in their areas, whereas the Northern Alliance had increased by 300 per cent. the growth of poppies in their areas.
	Our victory in Afghanistan, if that is what it was, did not decrease the use of drugs and the growth of the drug trade, but if we had gone in with the same policy as the Americans pursued towards Colombia, the drug trade would have expanded in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and the country formerly known as Burma, now Myanmar. The worry is that by following the policies of the United States we will see the Colombia-isation of a whole area of mid-Asia.
	I have another concern that is discussed only rarely. We have heard of star wars, but other weapons are being planned and may exist. A very interesting one is HAARP—the high frequency active auroral research programme. The Americans view it as having innocent intentions, but it terrifies the Soviet Union and many other countries because its effect has been described as boiling the ionosphere. Terrible weapons might exist beyond the ones of which we are aware.
	It is significant that the document on the project for a new American century refers to combat likely to take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes. It says that advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool. The people who wrote that and believe that it is the future are in charge of the only superpower in the world. It is a tragedy that we have not taken a more critical stance and challenged them in the way that leaders of other European countries have done.
	Finally, I thought that the best speech that I have read, possibly in my life time, on how to deal with the world, how to deal with the third world and how to guarantee peace was made by the Prime Minister at last year's Labour party conference. I urge him to take some time off to read his own words. We should take the least dangerous course, not the most dangerous one.

Jonathan Djanogly: In listening to the debate, what first comes to mind is that we live in a more dangerous world than ever before. The weakened grip of the old Soviet bloc has unleashed a multitude of regional power struggles, with dictatorships and nascent democracies fighting for influence and recognition within their own continents or, as in the case of Islamic extremism, against anyone who speaks in favour of secularism, liberty and democratic values.
	Instead of rogue states spending less money on arms, more money than ever is being spent on more powerful weapons, and nuclear proliferation is now a reality of regional power building. Sanctions, for the main part, have had a laughable effect, except of course on the civilian populations of the countries concerned. Be it diamonds in Africa or oil in the middle east, these reserves are not like bank accounts, which can be frozen. Even if Saddam were to allow in the inspectors, his access to 10 per cent. of the world's oil reserves means that he can afford whatever weapons he wants, whenever he wants. Last year, for instance, it is estimated that he earned some $2 billion from oil, despite sanctions and a bad oil market. In this regard, I note how the Government always seem ever so wary of mentioning oil when discussing the possibility of war against Iraq. That, in my view, is wrong, as the effect on world trade of organised market manipulation or embargoes is clearly a significant matter of national interest.
	Some people argue that a kind of post-cold war international vacuum has been created, thus undermining the now central role of the United States. Others more blatantly accuse the United States of warmongering or of getting involved only when it suits them and even isolationism. Such arguments are deeply flawed and very dangerous.
	What is the ultimate weapon of defence? It is certainly not nuclear weapons or anything to do with the military. It is the growing understanding within most of the developing world of the value of individual liberty, democracy, free enterprise and the liberalisation of domestic and world trade. This message has not been lost on America's enemies, many of whom predicted that the terrible events of 11 September would lead to increased US isolationism and even the end of the world globalisation process. How wrong they have been. The process has been accelerated rather than slowed. In the face of the common terrorist defence threat, developing countries and western countries are seeing more than ever how their common defence interest lies in the development of trading relationships between them and the resulting higher living standards for their peoples. The best example of that was the agreement to move ahead on the World Trade Organisation trade round at Doha, which, prior to 11 September, was on the verge of collapse. However, within two months of 11 September, it suddenly happened because it made people think about the problem.
	I mention trade because it is key to understanding the reasons behind the new worldwide, American-led resolve to counter terrorism and to deal with national defence in the new global context. States that were once blacklisted by the United States, such as India and Pakistan, are now back at the table. Relations with China are improving. It is no coincidence that, only a few months ago, China joined the World Trade Organisation and now wants to expand its commercial base.
	Diplomatic ties between Russia and the west are increasingly strong, with exchanges of security information and a co-ordinated, albeit different, approach forming. Once again, trade is playing its part in that. Russia, with its significant investments in Iraq, has every interest in retaining interest and dialogue with the United States in preparation for the possibility of a post-Saddam Iraq.
	The United Kingdom can also see how, working closely with the United States, we can have an influence—for example, in encouraging the US to work with the United Nations, or having a continued involvement in the post-war reconstruction in Afghanistan.
	The message is that by standing together we will defeat common threats to world security—that is the message of 11 September and, indeed, of Kuta beach. That has been the basis of our recent successes in putting Saddam Hussein on to his back foot and of NATO's successes in recent decades. Standing together without the ability and ultimate intent of using force will lead to failure. Let us suppose that we took NATO or the United States out of the picture. Consider the prospect of Europe acting alone, with France soft-pedalling on the one hand, and Germany hostile to a firm answer to Saddam on the other. Where would we be now? I would say, XNot very far". How quiet the Government have been recently on the Nice treaty's European security and defence policy—a toothless dead duck of a proposal if I ever heard one. The lesson is clear: we stick with NATO, we do not cut out our allies, such as Turkey, and we do not alienate the United States.
	It is refreshing that the Government have stopped talking about a peace dividend—of course, there never was one. Now, we should stop wasting our time on European Union defence and going it alone, with its inherent risk of splitting NATO, we should stop running down our regular forces, stop decimating our reserve forces and put more money into our military so that they can cope with their ever-growing number of operations.
	In that regard, November's Prague NATO summit will be very important—not only in terms of the enlargement of NATO and the related reorganisation that that involves, but in providing us with the opportunity to disown the disastrous European defence experiment and to reaffirm our support for NATO and US involvement.
	In fairness, the Government talk of supporting NATO, but can they deliver, given the way in which we are heading? While Europe is spending its time fretting about from whom its ever-smaller forces will take orders, America has been spending money on its defence. The problem is that, since 11 September alone, America has spent $48 billion more than Europe, Russia and China combined on its defence. Some people complain about the US unilateralist approach. Indeed, they say that the US has been unwilling to work within NATO in relation to Afghanistan or Iraq. The fact remains, however, that Europe's forces are now so weakened that US unilateralism is becoming increasingly inevitable, even if we say that we are going to support the US with men or indeed just with words.
	To that extent, America is fully justified in saying that Europe should be paying more for its own defence—not only to up our game in absolute terms, but even if just to support a keyhole-surgery type approach of targeted rapid reaction and mobility. Let us not forget that the more that we rely on specialist forces, the more that technology comes into play. Here more than anywhere US research investment means that the US is pulling away from us so quickly that arms compatibility within NATO is becoming an ever more serious issue.
	On equipment, the Government seem concerned about maintaining competition within the arms industry. Some people believe that Europe should jealously guard its manufacturing capability. That may sound attractive, but frankly we have missed the boat, as Europe's historic unwillingness to invest in research now means that we have a great and ever growing reliance on US technology. Why waste time fighting the inevitability of market consolidation? We should actually be prioritising European and US arms compatibility—that is, if we are going to have any sort of industry in Europe at all in future.
	The Government also need to be more upfront on the realities of our and Europe's weakening position. Why, for instance, have they been sitting on the fence with regard to America's national missile defence proposals? Earlier today the Secretary of State moved towards a positive position on the issue, but not quite. Surely it is in our best interests that America feels safe from attack. Why not help it to feel safe in a way that would enable us to receive the benefit of the missile shield against nuclear proliferation? Given our overall relationship with America, surely it is highly unlikely that a missile threat against America would not also pose a threat to us.
	Effective defence measures do not begin and end with star wars projects. Indeed, our civil defence capability is widely seen as inadequate and underfunded. How many terror incidents must there be before we sort out our civil defence?
	Finally, the Government need to appreciate that if we are to maintain our severely stretched operational capability and improve the technical capability of our military, we will simply have to increase spending on our armed forces.

Doug Henderson: President Bush said last week that the
	Xcampaign against Saddam Hussein is not a distraction from the fight to destroy the al-Qaeda movement."
	That is clearly a political statement, and I believe that it is fundamentally flawed. Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are not the same; even if there is sometimes similarity in means, there most certainly is not in nature.
	This issue arose as a major point in today's debate, and the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman made much of the argument that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are the same. However, those who say that there is a difference are not a small minority—whether in this House, in the country at large, or internationally. Last week, the Democrats in the United States Congress voted by a clear majority against the proposal to allow President Bush to do what he wanted in relation to any form of terrorism. It would be tragic and awkward for the Labour party if we were to be nearer to President Bush's position than that of the Democrats and many people in this country and the United States.
	I regularly read American opinion polls, which show fluctuations in the level of support for action against Iraq. The message that is coming through is that the public do see a distinction. They sometimes forget about it, as a poll this week indicated. People were appalled at the aftermath of what happened in Bali, but when they begin to think, they see a clear distinction between what Saddam Hussein is—the threat and the theatre—and what the international terrorist is. Political error will generate error in military policies as well—in this country and in the United States. Once that began to show up in any conflict, the public opinion that supported dealing with the two theatres as one would melt away. Leaders in this country, the United States or elsewhere who argued that position would be seriously isolated from international public opinion.
	The global terrorist is a relatively new phenomenon. In the past, there have been national terrorists and even international terrorists, as has already been alluded to, but the global terrorist is a reflection of the politically and economically global society that we now live in. The global terrorist is well informed, well trained, well equipped, determined, works under the cover of urban or rural society, and is often prepared to give his life. It might be cowardly to coerce a young militant into giving his life, but it is fanatical and brave and the ultimate sacrifice to be that young militant and to give one's life. My fear is that, by dealing with the two threats as one and further isolating the young Muslim international community from the rest of the world, we will create a breeding ground for more fanatics and more young men who are prepared to be brave and threaten democracy in a much wider forum.
	Defending democracy and maintaining a stable society needs a completely different approach from that used in the cold war and post-cold war eras to deal with a conventional threat. We might as well recognise that now in our foreign policy and defence policy, and in the way we allocate public expenditure. If we do not do so, we will be back here again after further atrocities and a further failure to deal with the global terrorist. We will then have to commit ever-increasing resources to deal with an ever-growing situation.
	To counter the global terrorist, we primarily need better intelligence. We need a dramatic increase in the existing intelligence provided by the various intelligence agencies, and perhaps we should bring such agencies together in a more co-ordinated way. I give credit to the Government for increasing expenditure on intelligence services. However, #15 million extra out of a combined Foreign Office and defence budget of about #24 billion will be shown to be inadequate. Some members of the Government will probably feel that too, and those who do must fight for better resources for that capacity and for a reallocation of existing resources.
	Of course, we also need political association and political understanding, without which there is no point in having more intelligence. We will never be prepared to exchange 100 per cent. of our intelligence information—and we never should—but we need to be prepared to exchange intelligence to tackle a situation, whether in Indonesia, Afghanistan or wherever. We will not be able to share that intelligence, however, unless we share more of a common political platform. We must be able to have a relationship with the moderate states in the middle east, in the far east and in the area around Malaysia and Indonesia. If we do not have a common political cause, there is no way that our intelligence services will be able to share intelligence to track down the terrorist, who is as much of a threat to those societies as he is to the western societies that we inhabit.
	We need a completely different approach to Saddam Hussein. If he is a threat, and if his arms are about to be used, the measures that I would advocate for countering the individual terrorist and the small terrorist group will not work—more conventional forces, including tanks, air power and so on, will be needed, and we must retain that capacity. At the moment, however, I do not believe that Saddam Hussein is as serious a threat as he is made out to be. One might have thought, listening to the Front-Bench spokesmen in the debate that we had on the matter two or three weeks ago, that the Government really had evidence, apart from the dossier, that convinced them that he was a threat. At that time, I began to think that perhaps they had such evidence, as they displayed such determination and unity. I was in the United States last week, however, and one sometimes gets a different picture. The perspective there is different—apart from the situation with the Democrats, to which I have referred—and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency is saying in his advice to Congress, XThis guy is not an immediate threat, but he will be a threat if you guys let him believe that you are going to attack him." That is a serious flaw in the doctrine of pre-emptive strike. I believe that any pre-emptive strike would be extreme folly.
	I do not know what will happen at the United Nations in the debates that follow. I hope that the debate today with members outside the Security Council is informed, and that it takes the United Nations down a route that will allow the situation in Iraq to be resolved, which means the return of the inspectors. It would be wrong, at this stage, to pre-determine what the United Nations reaction should be if the inspectors fail. Let us give them a chance. When they come back, if they say, XWe've been obstructed," or XWe've failed," it is incumbent on the United Nations to come forward with a further response. However, to argue—as has been argued by people such as President Bush—that our response should be pre-determined, and that everybody should know that Saddam will be attacked whatever happens, is a completely wrong strategy.
	That kind of strategy, combined with a failure to understand the distinction between Saddam Hussein and the international terrorist, will lead many young Muslims worldwide into the hands of those who are prepared to commit atrocities. I do not believe that such people want to commit atrocities; I do not believe that they are any different from us as human beings. I believe that their political system has driven them into a situation in which it becomes honourable, as it was in the crusades, to commit one's life for a cause. That is highly dangerous for the developed world and for the world that wants to be based on democracy. That is why we must counter it.
	I wanted to make one or two further comments, but I am mindful that other colleagues also want to speak. I am grateful for having been given the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Julian Lewis: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said that he thought that there was a new phenomenon of international terrorism. I recall that phenomenon some time ago in the shape of Carlos the Jackal, a rather successful international terrorist, the Baader-Meinhof gang and the Red Army Faction. I recall something else about all those terrorist groups. It was always denied that anyone else was behind them and it was denied that they were covertly funded, supplied and supported by the enemies of western democracy. Do you know what happened, Madam Deputy Speaker, at the end of the cold war when the wall came down and the secrets were exposed to public view? It turned out that those groups had been funded by the conventional enemies of western democracy and many of them were dug out from their boltholes in the former Soviet Union and the disgustingly named Xsocialist democratic republics" of its evil empire, which we were so lucky to defeat.
	How did we defeat that evil empire? It was by having what the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith), who I was sorry to see leaving the Chamber as soon as he had finished his speech, called the US war machine and the British war machine. The funny thing about machines is that they are as good or as bad as the purposes to which they are put. I think that the nuclear weapons of the US and British war machines have rather a lot to their credit. Post-Hiroshima and post-Nagasaki, in all the time that they existed, they never killed anyone. However, weapons, such as the knives and the machetes that were used in Rwanda, killed a great many people. Therefore, to generalise about weapons without reference to the nature and track record of the people who possess them and to the intentions of the people who might use them is to miss the whole point of the debate.
	We have heard some interesting remarks about how brave it is of these young men to sacrifice themselves. I do not think that it is very brave to sacrifice oneself in a cause when one has been indoctrinated with blind hatred and with a belief that, if one sacrifices oneself in the cause, one will go to paradise and have a much better existence after one's death than one has now. Far from being brave, it is the essence of cowardice to demonstrate one's so-called bravery by taking it out not on people who can hit back but on those who are going about their lawful business, whether at work in an office building or at play in a discotheque. With due respect to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, who knows I like him very much as an individual, it is very foolish to say such things in the House of Commons because it encourages people who are misguided at best and downright evil at worst.
	I referred to the contribution of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, but the speech of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) was a stark contrast. He made one of the most original and thoughtful speeches in the debate when he referred to ballistic missile defence. I believe that I am right to say that he spent much of his working life before he entered Parliament in the Ministry of Defence.

Nigel Beard: indicated assent.

Julian Lewis: I am glad that I got that right. The work that he did in the Ministry of Defence with many people from many other political parties probably did a great deal more for peace, security and freedom in this country than the blatherings of those who think that getting rid of our weapons, while allowing dictators such as Saddam Hussein to keep or to acquire them, will lead us to a promised land of peaceful international relations.
	The Americans' determination to get rid of Saddam Hussein this time has, of course, something to do with 11 September 2001. Even if there were no direct link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, it would be relevant for the Americans to consider the fact that, when they dealt with al-Qaeda before 11 September, they knew that it was a highly dangerous organisation that might pose a deadly threat at some unspecified time in the future. They did not act against it, probably because they felt that international and domestic opinion was not strong enough to enable them to act against it. We know what happened—3,000 people were killed. I believe that people at the heart of the American planning machine take the view, and they would be right to do so, that they are not going to make the same mistake with Saddam Hussein.
	People say that there is no immediate threat from Saddam Hussein, but what is the converse of that proposition? Surely we are not supposed to wait until there is a threat so close to us that it would be much more dangerous to act against him than it is now. If the truth be told, and I say with no sense of undue pride that I mentioned this in debates dealing with the bombing of Iraq two or three years ago—long before the events that we are now considering—the real mistake was made by the Americans and the British Conservative Government in 1991, when they failed to finish off Saddam Hussein. They were concerned that a coalition might break down, leading to adverse consequences in the political set-up of the middle east. Because they ducked that decision then, we now face a harder decision. That was a mistake; we must not make the same mistake now and store up even greater trouble for ourselves in future.
	The hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), who I am sorry to see is not in his place, asked about the circumstances in which Saddam Hussein might use nuclear weapons. He said that the most likely circumstance is that of an attack on Iraq, when Saddam would have nothing to lose. That over-simplifies matters, because Saddam may have nothing to lose, but the military infrastructure around him will still have a great deal to lose. They will know that if they carry out any order from Saddam Hussein in the course of an overwhelming military attack from a western coalition, which is what it will be if it happens, they will face certain annihilation. The best way to deal with the matter is to deal with the threat before it gets more and more certain that Saddam Hussein will acquire more deadly weapons of mass destruction than he already has and be able to hold the region, if not the world, to ransom.
	One of the strange things that Saddam and al-Qaeda have in common is that they were too impatient. Both wanted to act but they did not want to wait. As we now know, if Saddam Hussein had waited two years to invade Kuwait, the scenario would have been very different. If he had waited that long, he would have had a nuclear bomb, so the west's response would have been more cautious and indecisive, and that would have shifted the balance of strategic considerations, possibly decisively, against what still deservedly carries the name of the free world.
	Make no bones about it, hon. Members should be aware of the fact that there is no disgrace in referring to the strategic importance of the resources of the middle east; there is no disgrace in referring to the oil-richness of the middle east; and there is no disgrace in recognising that Saddam Hussein wanted to go into Kuwait precisely because he wanted those resources and, above all, to deny them to states that he regards as enemies.
	I want to cut short my remarks because I know that other Members wish to speak. I shall conclude with the briefest of references to NATO's upcoming, vital summit in Prague on 21 and 22 November. When that event occurs, there will be an enlargement of NATO. Nobody knows yet how many countries will join; it could be up to six or seven. That enlargement will involve a significant increase in NATO's obligations. If that occurs and it works—I think that it will do so—NATO will once again have triumphed in showing international society that it is possible to work together co-operatively in matters of vital national and international significance without undue loss of individual sovereignty. I think that the Americans put up with the idea of a rapid reaction force outside NATO because they thought that it might help the Europeans to contribute more ships, aircraft and soldiers. That is not going to happen and they know it. Thank goodness they are now setting about creating a real rapid reaction force that is inside the structure of NATO and is not futilely placed outside it so as to confuse, weaken and undermine all that NATO has achieved in years gone by.

Tam Dalyell: Before posing certain questions of a technical nature of which I have given notice to the Ministry of Defence, may I express a passionate view? A country cannot ask its service men and women to put their lives at risk in circumstances where it is not the overwhelming settled conviction of the country that the cause is legitimate, just and sensible.
	Whether I like it or not, I opposed the Falklands war, but I recognise that the overwhelming view of this country was that action should be taken. Yes, I opposed the Gulf war, but I recognise that the overwhelming conviction of the country was that something should be done about the invasion of Kuwait. Yes, I opposed what happened in Kosovo and Afghanistan, and what a mess they are turning out to be. Nevertheless, there was again a very strong feeling that something should be done.
	On this occasion, it is far from the settled conviction of Britain that there should be a pre-emptive strike against Iraq without an updated and unmanipulated United Nations decision. Therefore, I agree with the former commander of 7th Armoured Brigade, of which I was once a very junior member, Major General Patrick Cordingley, and many other military people—this is not just the usual suspects—on the very widespread view in this country that we should not take military action without United Nations authority. When one sees all the unaligned countries lining up to express doubt, when President Putin, frankly, puts our Prime Minister in a very humiliating position, and when France and Germany are against such action, we should have no truck with it.
	I should like to ask certain questions of a technical nature. Will the Minister state categorically that the WE177 tactical nuclear bombs have not been returned from storage for deployment in the middle east? In that regard, it is not appropriate to use the Xneither confirm nor deny" formula. That does not apply to those weapons, as it is this Government who went on the public record to say that they had been withdrawn from service.
	I should like also to ask about the weaponry on the British territory of Diego Garcia and particularly the B61-11 tactical nuclear earth-penetrating weapons for destroying bunkers. Again, it is not good enough to give a Xneither confirm nor deny" answer. We are heading for a war in which an opponent may, if cornered, use chemical and biological weapons. A potential nuclear response would, first, be the first use since Nagasaki 57 years ago; secondly, break the most important threshold in modern war; thirdly, put Britain at risk of a terrorist response with chemical, nuclear or biological weapons; and, fourthly, make the world a much more dangerous place. In those circumstances, the House of Commons has every right to know exactly what is happening on the British territory of Diego Garcia, which is, incidentally, the biggest American base outside the continental United States.
	Finally, and at a little length, I ask Ministers for a response to information from the autumn 2002 issue of XDefence Review" on contamination. There could be a chemical and biological weapon counterattack. In those circumstances, British forces, superbly trained, along with American forces would probably press home their attack and Iraqi troops would surrender. But the UK and US weapons systems might be covered with sarin, soman, ebola or VX, which could spread death for decades. The successor Government to Saddam Hussein, if that were the case, might well refuse to decontaminate them.
	We are faced with real problems of noxious agents. Kuwait would certainly refuse to accept them. One would have to dismantle the facilities, or bring them home. Bringing home such equipment would involve very considerable difficulties, so there would have to be sealift. There would be problems for the shipping companies—decontaminating shipping is extremely complex. Few ports would accept contaminated nuclear material or material contaminated by biological agents. Royal Navy ships might well not want to risk, at best, a long time in dry dock, or, at worst, being scrapped after bringing CBW home.
	For the sake of time, I shall quote directly from XDefence Review", which states:
	XEven this shipping scenario is based upon a big assumption: that the decontamination at source is judged to be 100 per cent. successful. The difficulty with decontaminating military platforms is that they all have moving parts. While the outside may be clean, agents may have penetrated parts of the vehicle, such as bearings, and be impossible to reach unless the whole vehicle is taken apart and each piece cleaned. Biological agents have a fixed life in the open, but in the dark, warm sheltered parts of some vehicles they could have their life extended exponentially. This raises the question of how clean is clean?
	Ministry of Defence vehicles undergo regular routine maintenance and, if the experts are not 100 per cent. sure that they are clean, then all mechanical and electrical engineers will have to be enclosed in full IPE. This imposes a huge physiological and physical burden and makes basic tasks onerous."
	That is the kind of difficulty that we will have to face if Saddam Hussein is cornered. What is the Government's response?
	We are up against a situation in which there has been a coup in the United States—a very American coup. As some of my colleagues have said, a narrow group of neo-Conservatives around Bush have taken control of US security policy. They are not true representatives of that great country and they are dangerous to us all. We should exercise every caution about following American policy, given the leadership of the United States in 2002.

Angus Robertson: The issue of global terrorism is clearly at the top of the agenda following the tragedy in Bali, and I associate myself, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru completely with the condemnation of that attack by right hon. and hon. Members during the debate. As has been pointed out by many, including Vice-President Al Gore, the recent increasing concentration on Iraq should not detract from the challenge posed by terrorism and al-Qaeda. However, I shall focus my comments not on geostrategic or tactical questions posed by the campaign against terrorism or on whether or in what form there should be military intervention in Iraq, but on preparedness for any eventualities.
	The Scottish National party position against unilateral military action by the UK and the US is clear and unambiguous, and we hope to see the start of weapons inspections soon. Nevertheless, should it come to pass that our service personnel have to take part in multilateral or unilateral action, I am keen to seek reassurance from the Government on a number of fronts.
	The Minister will be aware of my constituency interest in the matter, as many of the current air operations over the middle east and Afghanistan involve personnel from RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss in Moray. I was pleased to meet many of them in theatre recently while on a visit to bases in the region, together with the hon. Members for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) and for Workington (Tony Cunningham). I put on record my thanks to the RAF and the Ministry of Defence for the excellent tour, which was valuable for learning the views of men and women in the UK armed forces in the region. It is those service people who are at the front line of any potential offensive against Iraq.
	Initial reports suggest that any eventual UK military operation in Iraq will also involve an enlarged armoured brigade and air support. Two Scottish regiments—the Scots Dragoon Guards and the Black Watch—are currently assigned to the Desert Rats and they could play a part in any deployment. In addition, Scottish-based Tornado and Nimrod squadrons are expected to be involved.
	For that reason, there is a particular interest in Scotland about how those service personnel, either recruited or stationed north of the border, are likely to participate in any eventual action, and whether worries about equipment and Gulf war syndrome have been fully addressed. Bearing in mind the experience of the UK's Operation Granby as part of Desert Storm in the last Gulf war, there are still serious concerns about Gulf war syndrome and how those afflicted have been treated since the conflict.
	Can the Minister confirm whether the same mixture of vaccines used to inoculate our troops the last time is likely to be used in the future, and what monitoring procedures are in place for theatre operations to detect emerging symptoms similar to those suffered the last time that troops were involved in offensive action? Those are concerns that have been articulated to me and other Members by service personnel, and they deserve an answer.
	Military sources also show that the UK is likely to be asked to produce a force at divisional strength of around 25,000 men. Ministers will be well aware of the problems highlighted by the National Audit Office about the most recent military exercises in Oman. Operation Saif Sareea II highlighted how essential military equipment failed to deal with the extremes of desert warfare. Soldiers' boots fell apart and armoured vehicles, guns, helicopters and heavy lifting equipment could not deal with the heat.
	UK armoured regiments will use the same Challenger tanks that were used in Oman, despite the discovery that that desert dust clogged up the tanks' air filter so that they could operate for only four hours. Quite apart from interoperability difficulties with the United States, the filter issue is key. I was glad to see that assurances were given to the Select Committee on Defence yesterday that contingencies have been arranged to deal with that. Can the Minister confirm how long it will take to fit filters on more that 200 Challenger tanks? Have the filters already been constructed?
	Following on from the NAO report, further questions remain unanswered. Have modifications been made to the plastic air filters on AS90 artillery pieces, which melted in operation Saif Sareea II in Oman? What improvements have been made for radio communication? Given that the Bowman system is not expected until 2004 at the earliest, will UK troops still depend on Clansman, which is not secure, or will they have to depend on mobile phones, as they did in Kosovo?
	In addition, there are the questions that continue to surround the SA80 rifle. There is no doubt about the weapon's accuracy and balance, but it has been prone to a long list of defects that have been debated often in the House and which the Government assure us have now been dealt with by the Heckler and Koch upgrade. Nevertheless, there has been a profound lack of trust in the weapon's reliability, and many service men tell me that they would far prefer to see the SA80 replaced by the M-16 or M-4 carbine.
	Is the Minister confident that, with the upgrade and new cleaning guidelines for the SA80 A2, we will not see a repeat of the experience of 45 Commando during Operation Jacana in Afghanistan? Are there any contingency plans to replace the SA80 at short notice if the realities of desert combat show that the weapon is still not reliable?
	All those questions are legitimate and have been posed by members of the service community. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to answer them without claiming that plans are not being drawn up by the MOD for future eventualities in Iraq. Plans are being drawn up, strategies are being developed, assets are being ring-fenced, spares are being cannibalised and service men and women have been told when they can expect leave to be cancelled.
	All this also has a potential domestic impact. The call-up of reserve and Territorial Army medics would have an impact on the national health service, and account must also be taken of the impending industrial dispute involving the Fire Brigades Union. Until recently, the Black Watch and the Scots Dragoon Guards were reportedly on stand-by for firefighting duty, but they have now returned to normal military training. While the ring-fencing of combat units based in Germany may be prudent in military planning terms, it raises questions about how domestic fire cover could be optimised if there were a strike. Similar manpower shortages are also likely to be highlighted in other areas, should there be a substantial additional deployment.
	In the RAF alone, there are significant shortages of motor transport drivers and cooks following the increase in contractorisation. That puts an enormous strain on those serving in those blue-suit roles who already seem to be on the permanent detachment rotation. What contingency plans are being made to diminish the pressures on those and other key roles in the services? I am certain that, in his reply, the Minister will rightly praise the professionalism of the armed services, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. Nevertheless, the questions that I have posed have been raised by service men and women, and the issues are vital to the future of operations that may take place sooner rather than later.

Geraint Davies: Saddam Hussein polled 100 per cent. of the vote in a recent referendum not because of his telephone canvassing and popularity but because the main hope in life for most people in Iraq is to die a natural death—there is so much torture and execution there. He is not only evil but dangerous. He has invaded his neighbours in Iran and Kuwait, sent missiles to Israel, and killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Marsh Arabs. Indeed, he killed his own son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, in 1995—after he had disclosed plans for the manufacture of nuclear warheads—along with some 40 members of his family.
	Since the weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998, we have faced a threat that means that if we do not act, Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons, at which point it will be too late to use military force to decommission them. Many Members have pointed out that if we do anything to Saddam Hussein, he will unleash weapons of mass destruction such as biochemical weapons. Surely the argument must be that the longer we wait, the worse the threat of unleashing mass destruction becomes, particularly when he equips himself with nuclear weapons. That is why it is imperative that the United Nations act to enforce the decommissioning of his weapons of mass destruction.
	The United States has not helped itself, because its attitude towards world affairs is demonstrably one of self-interest rather than world interest. We have only to look at Kyoto, in relation to the environment, or the effect of steel tariffs on free trade. There are also question marks over human rights in relation to the United States' lack of support for an international court. Indeed, the situation in Camp X-Ray is not altogether acceptable. One of my own constituents has been incarcerated there for nearly a year without any rights and without being charged. He should be either charged and punished or repatriated. Nevertheless, action must be taken before it is too late.
	As I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State, it is important that we obtain a United Nations resolution that is simple and achievable, and that commands the respect of the rest of the United Nations. It is unacceptable to couch a resolution in terms of requiring 600 prisoners of war to be accounted for, or requiring the end of persecution and oil smuggling, or the provision of US armed guards. Such a resolution would not be accepted by others, and would inevitably trigger a war if implemented.
	The Bali tragedy underlines the value of united action on world affairs. America has the economic and military might to act unilaterally to bring about regime change. However, that would be to attack individual countries rather than combat terror. Unilateral, pre-emptive action would open Pandora's box. It would legitimise an attack on Taiwan by China, continuing attacks on Chechnya by Russia, and an attack on Pakistan by India. Legitimising unilateral pre-emptive action would encourage the use, rather than the control, of weapons of mass destruction.
	People have asked whether the Iraqi threat can be separated from combating terrorism. Despite what has been alleged, Saddam is a secular tyrant who has killed various mullahs and he is not a friend of al-Qaeda. It is a shame that people confuse the issue. However, managing the Iraqi threat has an impact on the war against terror. As the report by the Council on Foreign Relations disclosed today, the Saudi Arabians are not helping us much in gaining access to the funding streams for terrorism. George Bush's policy is not to use full United States power and influence to combat funding from Saudi Arabia to terrorist organisations. I presume that the reason for that is his short-term preoccupation with success in dealing with the threat of Iraq.
	Clearly, we must balance our objectives. I hope that the focus and noise from the United States will change slightly after the 3 November congressional elections, when the political focus in America will be on world affairs rather than the awful state of the economy.
	The United States needs to build trust in the world by using its diplomatic and economic power to create a better world. That does not simply mean neutralising the threat in Iraq, but using its strength to enforce peace in Palestine. The US is the only nation with the power to do that. In the opinion of many Arab states, unless it sends the right signals to Ariel Sharon, who is not a friend of peace, it will not demonstrate an even-handed approach to world affairs.
	We have a historic opportunity not only to neutralise the Iraqi threat but to move forward on Palestine. Britain is the only voice to which the United States listens; it simply dismisses everyone else. We should say that we want a resolution, decommissioning and to avert war, but that decommissioning will occur only with the threat of war. We should also say that we want delivery on Palestine and the rebuilding of Afghanistan. If the global community witnesses solutions emerging in Palestine and the rebuilding of Afghanistan, it is more likely to support a collective ambition to sort out matters in Iraq.
	We have an opportunity to make major headway and I hope that the British Government will take the lead in putting other issues on the agenda and in producing a simple, clear resolution about unfettered access and decommissioning. There could then be progress on neutralising the Iraqi threat without necessarily having to resort to war.

Hugo Swire: The debate bears the all-encompassing title of XDefence in the world". It is therefore unsurprising that contributions have been made on a variety of subjects, not least on the US missile defence programme. I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that that vital subject will receive full consideration on the Floor of the House.
	Compared with 15 or 20 years ago, the world is a more dangerous place. I have always been sceptical about the concept of a peace dividend. The day the cold war ended and the iron curtain was raised, the world became a less predictable and more dangerous place.
	Only today, we have had reports of nuclear proliferation reaching North Korea. I wonder how many other countries are more advanced than we think in obtaining weapons of mass destruction.
	We are paying the price for letting our guard down in the aftermath of the cold war and allowing rogue states to poach technicians and technical know-how. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that every necessary resource is being made available to monitor the whereabouts of those scientists and those with technical know-how to stop the spread going any further.
	The entrenched positions of the two superpowers during the cold war years had a certain in-built safety. Both sides knew that ultimately the price of conflict would be too high. That created a safety valve, as evidenced by the Cuban missile crisis when the world stood at the brink of a precipice. That has now been replaced by asymmetric threats and a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As a result, any threat will be non-discriminatory and non-proportional. There is no longer any division between conventional or legitimate targets and innocents as we understand them, the recent tragic events in Bali being just such an example. We must therefore learn to adapt our military capabilities and our ability to respond quickly and effectively to match the changed nature of these threats.
	I wonder whether recent events have changed the support of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for a European Union rapid reaction force. There is a real probability that the Prime Minister, by identifying himself so closely with America, has inflicted untold damage on his relations with both the French and the Germans. What if the United States, backed by the United Kingdom, goes it alone in Iraq, with or without the requisite UN Security Council resolution? Where would that leave dreams of a rapid reaction force?
	We know that the United States is pressing NATO to constitute a special unit to combat terrorism, with 21,000 soldiers to be ready at short notice. We know also that the United States expects to participate in such a venture, but that Europe is to provide most of the soldiers. It is said that the force would be operational by October 2006. Perhaps most intriguing of all is that NATO would take decisions about when and where the force would be used.
	The report that I read went on to suggest that Donald Rumsfeld was using talk of a rapid response force to test the commitment and readiness of Europeans and our desire to spend our own money. As America increased its defence budget by $48 billion in the aftermath of 11 September—one-and-a-half times the French defence budget and twice the German budget—the Americans may be guilty of optimism. I would welcome the Secretary of State's comments.
	Our immediate domestic concerns must be for those soldiers, sailors and airmen who may be about to be committed once again to a theatre of war. Their equipment must be of the highest order, and I was reassured by the Secretary of State's comments on the SA80 A2 rifle. Their families must be properly looked after. Any assessment of overstretch must take into account the long periods of enforced separation for those families. We must not denude one area of commitment to shore up another. I have Northern Ireland in mind, where the suspension of Stormont may mean that the police force needs even more, not less, support from the Army.
	We need a guarantee that our troops will be properly prepared to meet any chemical or biological attack. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Government are 100 per cent. happy this time about the inoculations that our troops will have to have? Finally, there should be a guarantee that recruits who are attracted to join the forces by the possibility of conflict will be subject to the same rigorous training and standards as normal entrants and that the process will not be accelerated to fill gaps that have been created by undermanning. Nothing must stand in the way of our armed forces and their training, their discipline, their equipment and, ultimately, their professionalism, on which over the coming months we may well come to rely upon once again.

Jim Knight: Any debate on this subject must address the twin threats of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The attacks of 11 September, and now in Bali, have shown the deadly and ruthless nature of the threat that we must defend against. Despite the success of the action in Afghanistan in removing al-Qaeda's command, control and training, it is clear that dangerous cells remain scattered throughout the globe. Action against those cells requires international co-operation not just on military action, but on finance, intelligence and so on, and that must happen. There is an international will to have an international response to terrorism, but there is not the same will to act against rogue states with weapons of mass destruction, in particular Iraq, which will form the main part of my contribution.
	It is clear from constituents who have contacted me that there is still considerable concern about such action. The public need to be convinced about the threat. Intelligence information has convinced me that Iraq is capable of delivering warheads equipped with weapons of mass destruction to targets in the middle east. Coupled with Saddam's past record on Iran and his treatment of his people, that capability constitutes a threat to the middle east, including our NATO allies.
	The threat must be taken seriously because if Saddam is left as he is, the threat will grow, and with it his power over his neighbours, over whom he can exercise the power of a bully and the power of fear. I would not rule out military action as a means of dealing with the threat, but to justify taking such action now requires a belief that a failure to do so carries risks so great that they outweigh the dangers inherent in such action. It would be dangerous in the extreme to take military action without at least the tacit support and agreement of a significant majority of nations in the region. Although the vast majority of middle eastern states clearly do not support Saddam, it appears that the prospect of military action attracts even less backing. It is similarly vital that we guard against inflaming radical Islamic elements. We must minimise the likelihood of sparking terrorist outrages akin to those in Bali at the weekend.
	The public need the reassurance that the UN is sufficiently convinced by the case made by the Bush Administration and, to some extent, our Government. They do not trust the United States and bilateral action with it would isolate us in the world in the way that we want Iraq to be isolated. I would be equally wary of military action that promised to achieve a regime change. It would be great to see the back of Saddam and it may be necessary to end his regime, but that must not be the end in itself. Any military action must focus on the outcome of dismantling Iraq's destructive capabilities, not on regime change for its own sake. Furthermore, any military approach needs to be achievable while minimising the loss of civilian life. Previous experience has shown us that Saddam positions many of his key installations close to heavily populated areas, and military strategy must take that into account.
	In simple terms, I could support action if it is backed by the UN, but it should not be seen as giving in to the ambitions of the United States. This country places little trust in the Bush Administration. The same is true of Europe and across the world. A year ago, they had the world's sympathy. Sadly, it appears that they have lost it. Prior to 11 September, the US was retreating from the world and withdrawing from international commitments such as Kyoto. After the attacks, it showed great restraint and responded with broad international support in Afghanistan. However, in the past six months we have had the US steel tariffs, the Farm Acts, the blocking of progress in Johannesburg and the refusal to sign countless international treaties. The Administration's promises to rebuild a civil society in Afghanistan are yet to materialise. Meanwhile, President Bush pursues his axis of evil and, as a result, countries such as Iran worry that they may be next. There is also the lack of US sanction against the Israeli Government, which has been well discussed in the House. For those reasons, it has been a struggle for many to understand why our Government appear to remain so close to the Bush Administration.
	We are beginning to see beyond that public face, however. We are a constraining influence in Washington. Our voice has more than once tilted the balance of arguments between hawks and doves in the White House. There have been several instances in which our Government's quiet influence on US policy has resulted in a more measured approach to conflicts around the world. If a shoulder-to-shoulder public stance allows a small nation to wield a moderating influence in private over a dangerous belligerent superpower, it is a price worth paying. There is also a clear justification in maintaining pressure on Saddam. He needs to understand that there is no alternative but to co-operate with the UN. The prospect of military action must focus his mind. It may be right to act now with force, but only with the international authority of the UN, not with the imperial authority of the US.
	We must tackle our threats robustly but in an environment of a globalised threat. The response must be global, based on international co-operation with other Europeans, NATO allies and former cold war enemies, so that we have a legal, principled and justifiable response to the rogue elements that constitute the threat.

Mark Prisk: About an hour ago I was hoping that my speech would take a gentle trot through the issues of NATO missile defence, Iraq and so on, but I am afraid that the House will now be treated to a hectic gallop. In the short time that I have available, I shall focus on the issue of pre-emption, which was raised at the beginning of the debate but which has not been touched on in detail by other hon. Members.
	I briefly preface my remarks with a comment about the parliamentary armed forces scheme. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) mentioned HMS Grafton. In August I was fortunate enough to be one of four hon. Members to be on HMS Grafton. The scheme is excellent and well organised and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedication and professionalism of that tremendous crew and its captain. According to recent reports they secured a #60 million drugs haul and that is very much to their credit. Since then, there have been reports that the patrol may be part of a possible range of cuts of 10 surface ships. I hope that at the end of the debate the Minister will be able categorically to deny that.
	I now turn to pre-emption. Just a month ago in September, the United States Government published their national security strategy, setting out their aims and ambitions quite clearly. In many ways it is clearer than many documents produced by our Government. At its heart is a clear change in defence strategy from the doctrine of deterrence to that of pre-emption. It states:
	XWe will not hesitate to act alone if necessary, to exercise our right of self defence by acting pre-emptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country."
	As hon. Members will appreciate, the US Government are effectively basing their doctrine on the principle of national self-defence. Indeed, they refer to article 51 of the UN charter. Whether or not we agree with that point, such a doctrine poses fundamental military, political and diplomatic questions. In military terms, for example, what forces will we need in future? What balance will we need between regular and special forces? What effect will pre-emption have on the existing distinction between military action and law enforcement agencies—a distinction that is becoming increasingly blurred. Politically, does pre-emption require greater international collaboration, especially in terms of intelligence agencies, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said? What does this mean for our civil rights? Is there a danger that in trying to defend our freedom, we could snuff it out in the process? In terms of NATO, will the principle of pre-emption mean that we now need to review the very heart of the Atlantic treaty, in other words the principle of collective self-defence in article 5?
	All those questions need to be considered and debated, and sadly I do not have the time to do that. I have looked for a detailed analysis from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a detailed analysis and assessment from the Ministry of Defence as to whether, why and how the Government intend to replace deterrence with pre-emption, but aside from the odd unscripted comment from the Prime Minister and the slightly inadequate comments from the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate, the Government still seem unwilling to consider fully the implications of pre-emption and then to allow us to participate in such a debate.
	I conclude with a few questions for the Minister, and I hope that he will respond to them at the end of the debate. What studies have the Government commissioned to consider the military, political and security implications of the pre-emptive doctrine? What discussions have taken place between Departments on this issue and what opportunities—as have been cited for missile defence—will be provided for the House to consider the policy and make sure that we understand it and can work out the implications of it. This is a vital issue that shapes the whole of our defence, and I hope that the Minister will address it fully in his reply.

Rachel Squire: Like others, I hope for another opportunity to say something about the new chapter of the strategic defence review, which deals with network-centric capability, defence diplomacy and NATO enlargement. Only a few minutes are available to me, however, and I know that another Member has been waiting to speak. I shall therefore concentrate on the theme of partnership and co-operation.
	As a nation, we cannot go it alone. We are an island, but if we are to defend our homeland effectively and protect our interests across the world we must co-operate on a global basis. An effective UK defence policy must take the world as its backdrop. International terrorism takes the lives of British citizens wherever they are on the planet, as we have seen again this week so tragically in Bali. I know that all Members will extend their deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those who were killed or injured there.
	We cannot hope, as a nation, to have soldiers stationed in every part of the world where there are British citizens. We must co-operate with Governments and allies to share intelligence, and to detect and then deal with terrorists. We must also co-operate to tackle the causes of terrorism and promote international development, peace and stability, and law and order. I believe that the United Kingdom has played a vital role over the years, especially since 11 September. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Government and all involved for what they have achieved, and to our armed forces for maintaining their excellent reputation for professionalism and skill in all parts of the world.
	I shall concentrate on Iraq in the time that remains to me. All alliances have their tensions, and never is that more so than in the case of the United States. We as a country must constantly assess what we consider to be in our interests. When we encounter real or potential disagreement with the United States, where do we draw the line?
	For me and, I think, for my constituents, these are the key questions that should decide the extent to which we should support US policy on Iraq and be prepared to take military action without United Nations approval. Why now? What is unique about Iraq? In particular, what is unique about North Korea, given today's news? What type of military action would be effective, and what will it achieve, given that Operation Desert Fox seemed to have little or no effect? What price will be paid by our troops, by the Iraqi people and by the global coalition if we go in without UN approval? And what next for the nation of Iraq?
	XWhy now?" is the question that I am constantly asked by my constituents, meaning XWhy didn't we finish him off in 1991?", to put it bluntly—and also meaning XWhy now, when there appears to be no evidence of a clear link between Iraq and al-Qaeda and 11 September?" I have to say that the dossier, horrifying as it is, does not present to me sufficient new evidence to support a pre-emptive strike without UN approval.
	Let me end by suggesting to President Bush and his advisers that they should read the first paragraph of our MOD's XThe Future Strategic Context for Defence". Under the heading XA Lesson from History", it says
	XIn 546BC, Croesus King of Lydia was considering the possibility of mounting a pre-emptive attack across the River Halys against his increasingly threatening Persian neighbours. Undecided how to act, he consulted the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi on his prospects for success. 'Croesus, if you cross the Halys you will destroy a mighty empire' came the divine response. Delighted, Croesus proceeded to launch his attack, only to suffer a shattering defeat. His empire was annexed by the Persians."
	It then says at the bottom:
	XAccurately predicting the future course of military events is a tricky business."

Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) with her usual trenchant common sense—something to which we are used on the Select Committee on Defence. It is also a pleasure to attempt to follow the Father of the House. I, too, was a member of the 7th Armoured Brigade, albeit at a rather different stage. One or two of the hon. Gentleman's remarks bear further examination.
	I, too, feel passionately that our men and women under arms should be committed to battle understanding the legality and rectitude of their course. It would be wrong for our forces to go into action without that being fully explained and without the country behind them. I hope to ask the Government to make it clear why our men and women, to borrow a phrase from President Bush, should put themselves in harm's way and with a clear conscience.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) spoke about the lines of operation for counter-insurgency and counter-terrorist tactics in future. At the Prague summit the biggest challenge that will lie ahead of the reforged and regrouped NATO will undoubtedly be creating a force that is sufficiently light on its feet to do this sort of operation. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) pointed out, the 21,000 soldiers are likely to be earmarked for counter-terrorist operations. They will have to carry out political, economic, psychological, humanitarian and military lines of operation. The theories of counter-insurgency that have served us well for 30, 50 or perhaps 100 years are now looking a bit dated. NATO's challenge will be to adapt to a doctrine of pre-emption that may involve an early deployment of food aid rather than Tomahawk missiles. Our forces have to be capable of dealing not just with policemen—that point was made eloquently earlier—but with non-governmental organisations, and of dishing out food and, if necessary, violence. That will be difficult. Not many nations can handle that correctly. I think that our forces can. NATO will find it difficult and it will be a challenge.
	Moving swiftly on, the Government should point out that the nature of al-Qaeda and in particular the fundamentalists whom we are seeing now operating in Indonesia is wholly different from anything that the papers would lead us to believe. Headlines such as, XTerror is Back" after the Bali bomb are wholly misleading. It is a tribute to the security and intelligence forces around the world that attacks like that on the French tanker came to not very much. It succeeded, but it did not kill—I believe it killed one man. There are a host of other operations mounted by such terrorists that are not successful and do not make the headlines. We must understand that the potential for violence is always there and that the devices such as we have seen in Bali are just around the corner.
	It is not helpful either to compare al-Qaeda or any of their cohorts with the IRA. We can understand the IRA. It even had platoons, battalions and companies. Al-Qaeda and this style of fundamentalism is more a philosophy than a military force. Until we get our heads round that, we shall see continuing the ludicrous headlines that we have seen this week and we shall be unprepared for the next strike.
	Reference has been made to the Prime Minister's Bali statement, in which he made a clear distinction between weapons of mass destruction and global or international terrorism. Many of the eloquent statements that we have heard tonight have come from Members who believe that those are two distinct themes; they may be complementary but, at the moment, they are not merging. They are separate and although they may feed off one another, they do not require pre-emptive action to stop the two becoming one. However, the Prime Minister has made the point clearly that the two might merge, with horrific consequences.
	I urge Ministers to answer this question: why in the dossier was there no section concentrating on international or global terrorism? Why was the famous link not made between Baghdad and al-Qaeda? I understand the argument, which has been well made tonight, about source protection, but the fact remains that, from open sources, we have heard about the operations of people like Ansar al-Islam; groups operating in Iraqi Kurdistan that are armed, equipped, paid and trained by Baghdad, partially manned with al-Qaeda members and with every intention—if what the papers tell us is true—of operating against western targets. There are any number of other indications of the connection between the two.
	Mr. Rumsfeld has made it clear in America. His defence on this point has been to say, XLook. We are the Government. We have access to excellent intelligence. Believe us and trust us." I have not yet heard that argument deployed by the British Government. I believe that it would be effective and persuasive. I challenge Ministers to convince us—to convince the doubters—of the rectitude of their cause. I challenge the Government to make sure that our fighting men and women are ready and properly motivated to fight, and know that they go forward with a just cause behind them.
	A few days ago, it was Bali. Next week, next month or next year, it could be Basingstoke. Next time, however, it will not be several hundred pounds of plastic explosive. It could so easily be a nuclear warhead. Let us operate before we become victims in the way that other unfortunates have.

Keith Simpson: We have heard a series of powerful speeches from Members on both sides of the House, representing different opinions and mainly focusing on the threat from Iraq and from international terrorism. As a former Whip, I can say that, without exception, all speakers have been volunteers; no speakers have been dragged in to fill up the debate.
	We should distinguish between those colleagues who, despite the evidence produced by the British or American Governments, remain unconvinced of the threat from Iraq, and many other colleagues—who I suspect reflect public opinion—who are still not convinced but would like to be. This debate is not the end of the matter and we will see it continue over the next two or three weeks.
	I was disturbed that some Members tried to make a distinction between President Bush and members of his Cabinet, and the American people. They suggested that President Bush is some form of demented lunatic who is about to lead the world into world war. I remember similar accusations being made in the 1980s about President Reagan. Whatever President Reagan's faults and whatever issues he got wrong, he was broadly correct in his assessment of the international scene.
	The United States of America is a superpower, a large and powerful one that ultimately underpins the United Nations. If we want the will of the United Nations to be enforced, it is the United States, for all its many faults, to which we look to deliver the UN's security principles. I therefore caution colleagues who merely wish to make devils out of the present American Administration: we have the ability to talk to them and to influence them.
	I suspect that historians will look back on the 1990s as a decade in which we in Britain felt generally safe. I exclude from that statement the people of Northern Ireland and the terrorist threat within the United Kingdom. However, we would probably have to go back 100 years to look for a direct external threat. Most of us who are over 40 know only too well what it is like to live in decades in which we have felt the possibility of direct threat against the United Kingdom. The 1990s was a decade in which, under successive Governments, we were able to think about reducing the amount of defence expenditure and changing what we expected of the military. I believe that that decade is now seen as a period of political transition with, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, increased political instability in every region and proliferation in weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. That was highlighted very eloquently by my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and for East Devon (Mr. Swire).
	The Secretary of State rightly pointed out that the strategic defence review was designed to establish a framework for United Kingdom defence and security over the next 10 to 15 years, including an expeditionary force capability, power projection, working within coalitions and a new generation of equipment. I remember the debates that we had on that from my time as a Front Bench defence spokesman. In some respects I see that the arguments have not changed, but in others they have changed quite dramatically.
	The Secretary of State and Ministers will disagree with me, but there is no doubt that most people in the Ministry of Defence, while welcoming and actively participating in establishing the SDR, believe that it was underfunded. I welcome the increased money that has been given to the Ministry of Defence, although I think that many people in it believe that it amounts to little more than a standstill budget. Before Ministers say that this is merely party politics, I should point out that I think that this is a challenge for all the political parties. The nature of the threat that has been laid out by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and others is on such a scale that it will be challenging, to say the least, to meet our defence requirements, even with our current budget. That will pose many political problems for all the parties.
	I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State effectively said that, under the old SDR, the cut in our volunteer reservists was too great. Colleagues on both sides conducted a great campaign, as a result of which there was a reverse by the Ministry of Defence. There is now a greater requirement than ever before for our reservists.
	The debate on defence in the world includes not only power projection and expeditionary force capability but is directly linked with defending the UK against weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism. One of the bases of the strategic defence review of three years ago, which most defence opinion believed, was that there was very little direct threat to what the Americans would call the homeland. That has changed quite dramatically. One of the awful ironies of the world in which we live today—the new strategic environment—is that civilians are more likely to be casualties than the military and are certainly more vulnerable, as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) said.
	This debate has shown four key areas where we need to think ahead and, I hope, have future debates. A number of colleagues flagged up the assumption that we are now in an era of pre-emptive strategy and regime change, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), who did so very eloquently. We seem almost to have drifted into that. In the time available, I will not enter into a theological military debate on that subject, but it is an important step change. There are arguments for and against, but I look forward to hearing either the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence enunciating that strategy and why they believe that it is the strategy for the future.
	Who am I to gainsay Professor Sir Michael Howard, who, as retiring president of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, challenged the IISS to do some serious thinking on the subject? That is, first and foremost, a major strategic debate that we need to have. It is not only an academic debate; from it will flow many issues connected with policy, budgets and defence organisation.
	A number of hon. Members commented on the second area, which is the development by the United States of a technological war-fighting capability on a mind-boggling scale. The hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) and for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and others touched on this matter, not only in terms of a pre-emptive strategy but also the development of a ballistic missile defence.
	Like my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, I warmly welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State. However, the House will recognise that once again the development of a ballistic missile defence has enormous strategic connotations and will be challenging for the defence budget. It also means that we in Britain are just about keeping up with the United States of America in its military technological advances. Most of our European neighbours are way behind, with the exception of France. Unless we are very careful, we are likely to see a two-tier NATO, with the USA on one tier, Britain somewhere in the middle, and the rest of Europe on the other. Within the next two or three years, the difference will be like that between an old horse-drawn, foot-mounted infantry division and a mechanised armoured division. That will mean that the ability of the European members of NATO, including us, to participate in American-style operations will be extremely limited.
	The third area, on which once again there was considerable consensus, was the business of reforming NATO. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State and my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Newark (Patrick Mercer) pointed out the major problems that NATO has in dealing with the new strategic environment and, in particular, the failure of a number of European countries to reverse the cuts in defence budgets, which the Secretary of State flagged up. We have enormous military potential in NATO to meet the sort of threats that we now face, but we really have to do more in that area.
	Finally, I shall say a brief word on homeland security. Following 11 September, the Government have begun to take steps to co-ordinate the response to threats against the United Kingdom. I warmly welcome the appointment of Sir David Omand as the security and intelligence co-ordinator in the Cabinet Office. He is a man of tremendous experience of the defence and security world. As far as the Ministry of Defence is concerned, the military are in support of the civil power and in most areas the Home Office appears to be the lead Ministry.
	In the new chapter of the SDR, we learn that the MOD is establishing a reaction force of reservists—some 6,000-strong—to be capable of a rapid response. May I ask the Minister what progress has been made in establishing this rapid reaction force? What is its organisation? Is it being newly equipped? How is it trained, and to whom is it responsible?
	In commenting on the Government's response to the threat of terrorist attack in the UK, the Defence Select Committee's report, XDefence and Security in the UK", stated that the Government were Xconfusing activity with achievement". That may be unfair as only a year has gone by, but the thesis that I am advancing is that defence in the world is not just about facing threats overseas; as many hon. Members have said, it is about the direct threat to the United Kingdom. That threat will involve deterring terrorists in the belief that, if they try to get weapons of mass destruction or to carry out terrorist acts within the UK, we stand a fair chance of preventing them through intelligence, through our armed forces abroad, and with our allies. Secondly—this is very important in terms of public confidence—if something like that were to occur, we must have the ability and the resources to cope with the aftermath.
	Our armed forces bring immense experience to everything from war fighting to humanitarian operations. They are one area of the public sector by which, on every occasion, the Prime Minister knows that he will not be let down. They expect not only our general support, but the resources to enable them to achieve the objectives we set them. In the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism, the distinction between military and civilian has become blurred. There are no quick fixes in this area; as both President Bush and the Prime Minister said, we are in for a long haul. I believe that what the Government are doing is correct, and that they are doing it for the right reasons. In addition, they are doing it because they believe that the threat is so serious that, if we do not take action now, we will bear the consequences on a most horrific scale.

Adam Ingram: I begin by thanking hon. Members for their wide-ranging contributions to today's debate. I was going to say that this was the first outing of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) as a defence spokesperson, but he reminded us that he has done it before briefly.

Keith Simpson: In opposition.

Adam Ingram: In opposition, that is. I want to congratulate him on his new role, and I look forward to further debates with him. I wholly agree with the sentiment that he expressed—powerful contributions have been made in this debate, and we all learned from them. Let us hope that that is a two-way process.
	Defence in the world is certainly a broad topic, and the contributions to the debate reflect that fact. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk asked about homeland security and defence in the UK, and I should remind him that we will have a full debate on that subject in two weeks' time, so it would be inappropriate to presage it, or even to enter into such a discussion. There will be more time then to deal with that issue in greater depth, and I look forward to his contribution. I will read what he has said, because it has given us heads-up on the possible responses.
	Some 20 Members have contributed to the debate, and the issues raised have been wide-ranging: missile defence, the vexed issue of the threat of international terrorism and its relationship to the debate on what we do about Iraq, defence policy, deterrence and pre-emption, Army manning strength, Challenger 2 tanks, and the recent Saif Sareea training exercise. We also touched on the future of NATO, on UK and international defence budgets, and on UK defence sales—indeed, they are just a few of the issues that were raised.
	I listened with interest to the contribution of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir). Although the Scottish National party has recently launched its new policy document, he did not mention it. I hoped that we would get some explanation of it, but I think that it involves Scotland looking inwards, rather than outwards. It is a very interesting policy document running to many pages. What is interesting about it is that it completely fails to mention NATO. We know that the SNP is an anti-NATO party, but the hon. Gentleman missed the opportunity to set out his arguments in relation to this matter. Bearing in mind that he would campaign to rip Scotland out of the United Kingdom, creating uncertainty in an alliance at a time when there is growing threat, we have not had the benefit of his thoughts. Perhaps he disagrees with his party's policy, but he did not tell us that either.
	As hon. Members have observed, these are challenging and testing times for defence. We face new threats, and we must urgently seek new ways to protect ourselves, and our interests, from them. That has meant that our armed forces, and the all too often unsung civil servants who support them, have spent the last months working extremely hard as we have tried to update our defence plans and postures. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to that hard work, from which we all benefit. I recognise that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) paid a similar tribute to staff and frontline forces on behalf of their parties.
	The al-Qaeda attack in the United States on 11 September last year has been called many things, from a Xnightmare" to a Xwake-up call". It has certainly instilled a new urgency and a new focus on how best we deal, nationally and internationally, with the increased and continuing threats posed by groups such as al-Qaeda and by rogue states such as Iraq. In opening today's debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a number of important points on which hon. Members have alighted, such as his remarks on weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile defence.
	On missile defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), who, I think, has left the Chamber, made his usual case against the development. As I said earlier, debate is a two-way process, and if he is trying to persuade us, perhaps he should wait and allow those who argue against his case to develop theirs, and he may learn something, too. If he reads Hansard, however, he should read the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard), who made a very thoughtful contribution on what is becoming an increasingly important issue.
	On that point, I have nothing new to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said. I can only reiterate that the United States Administration have taken no specific decisions about the precise future architecture of a United States missile defence system. My right hon. Friend made it clear that if we were to receive a request from the United States to use Fylingdales, or any other UK facility, for missile defence purposes, we would consider it very seriously. The Government would agree to such a request only if we were satisfied that the overall security of the UK and the alliance would be enhanced. My right hon. Friend also clarified how this debate will be progressed in the future, and how we will proceed to examine the issue as it develops.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also spoke of our belief in taking the fight to the enemy militarily, and of acting proactively on the diplomatic front to help to defeat terrorism. We are investing heavily in new systems to allow us to do the former, such as the Apache attack helicopter, Eurofighter, the joint strike fighter, the new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy and a host of cutting-edge technology that will better link up such systems in real time.
	On the diplomatic front, we are striving to secure and reinforce friendships across the world, offering help in strategic terms and on a humanitarian basis to help destroy the roots of terror before they can grow.

Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Adam Ingram: I would prefer to reply to the points that my hon. Friend raised in the debate. If I have time to take an intervention, I shall do so.
	Several points were raised about the suitability of some of our equipment, not least the SA80 personal weapon system. I welcome the comments made by the hon. Members for North Essex and for East Devon (Mr. Swire) accepting the assurances given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the matter. The hon. Member for North Essex was, of course, given a full opportunity to examine what testing had been carried out on that weapon system. General Sir Mike Jackson was not at that event, but he is one of the most respected military officers of his generation and the next Chief of the General Staff. He is undoubtedly a soldier's soldier. He has joined the marines and paratroopers who have fought with the SA80 A2 in making it clear that, in their professional opinion, the rifle is among the best available. Those who know General Jackson are aware that he is not a man to be trifled with, and, to those who still have doubts, I say that his judgment and that of other professional experts should be listened to. Politicians and Ministers have a role to play, but the soldiers who use the system will be the best judges at the end of the day.
	In the time available, I shall try to deal with some of the issues raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) in an intervention and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) referred to the recent comments made by the head of the CIA to Congress that Iraq does not pose an immediate threat to the US. This issue is not just about whether there is an immediate threat to the US or to the UK but about the unique threat that Iraq poses to the middle east and beyond. It is about the increasing threat that Saddam will pose if he is left unchecked. It is about Iraq's clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions and international law. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the purpose of any action that we might take should be the disarmament of Iraq. Let me make it clear that Iraq's disarmament is in our national interest as a responsible member of the international community. It is right to make it the primary purpose of our international efforts.
	The hon. Member for North Essex talked about the future of NATO and said how much Saddam Hussein must rejoice at Europe and the US falling out about how to deal with Iraq. The United Nations is clearly there to examine the issue and to try to iron out differences, and not all European countries take the same approach to this issue. Therefore, it is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to lump Europe as a whole together and to say that we have fallen out with the US. Such an assertion is wrong. Europe stood united against Osama bin Laden and international terrorism after 11 September, and Europe stands united on the evil nature of Saddam Hussein's regime. The hon. Gentleman's obsession with—probably more accurately against—Europe distorts his judgment on these important issues.
	The hon. Gentleman used the phrase XEuro army", but there is no such thing as a Euro army any more than there is a NATO army or a UN army. Nor indeed is there a European rapid reaction force. National forces will come together for specific EU-led military operations as part of the European security and defence policy.

Bernard Jenkin: Why does the force have to be outside NATO? Why is it not inside NATO, as originally agreed in the Berlin-plus arrangements?

Adam Ingram: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman fully understands the proposal. The force will not be outside NATO in the graphic way that he described.

Bernard Jenkin: Yes, it will.

Adam Ingram: I shall not take a pantomime approach, but will write to the hon. Gentleman to set out the relationship between NATO and the emerging EU approach and the way in which there will be a connection between NATO assets in command and control terms and the EU.

Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?

Adam Ingram: No, because I had promised to deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
	The hon. Member for North Essex made a 50-minute contribution on behalf of the Conservative party and, given his fears and concerns, I wish to ask him who said this:
	XThe risk to NATO, to the transatlantic link and to the Euro-American relationship does not stem from what Europe is building. This risk could only come from Europe not doing it."
	That was said by Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's central charge that the US and Europe have fallen out does not appear to be borne out by that statement.
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about HMS Sheffield coming out of service and the question of naval strength. For the benefit of the House it is worth pointing out that between 1992 and 1997, under the Tory Government, 43 surface fleet warships were taken out of service. There are particular reasons for taking HMS Sheffield out of service early, one of which is the new cycle of maintenance, which means that ships can be on the surface for longer. We therefore believe that we can operate with 31 ships, rather than 32.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow asked several questions, and I shall deal with two of them. He asked how the UK would respond to the contamination of British forces' equipment with a biological agent, and he referred to a recently published article on the matter. I assure him that we take very seriously the threat to UK armed forces personnel and equipment of contamination by chemical and biological hazards. I am not prepared to comment on the capabilities of specific equipment because it could have operational implications. We would see any use of CB weapons as extremely serious and treat it accordingly. It would be wrong to speculate on our response because there are so many scenarios.
	The UK adopts a multi-layered approach to defence against the use of CB weapons. That includes being able to detect a chemical or biological threat, warning of a hazard, providing physical protection for personnel, managing any subsequent hazards and having available appropriate medical counter-measures to protect people. Primarily we would seek to avoid the contamination of UK forces through the avoidance of direct exposure. However, the contamination of some equipment could be unavoidable. In the events of troops and/or equipment becoming contaminated, decontamination would be undertaken using equipment issued to each unit. The precise nature of that activity would depend on the tactical situation and the level of contamination. The aim would be to enable the unit to remain operational.
	My hon. Friend also asked about the WE177 tactical nuclear bombs. That particular weapon has been out of service for some considerable time, and all bombs have been dismantled. I think that my hon. Friend has asked that question before, and been given that answer. I hope that my reply will lay the matter to rest.
	I genuinely like the contributions by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). He weighs his words carefully and he is very passionate and committed. I rarely agree with him, but I still value his input. However, he made an unfair attack on the staff at the Deepcut depot. The matter must be set in the context of the ongoing police inquiry, which inhibits what I can reasonably say at this stage.
	We recognise, however, that deep concerns have been expressed. As a responsible employer, we have in place mechanisms and procedures to examine those concerns. We are therefore looking thoroughly at our internal practices, with a special, in-depth appraisal of initial training of non-officer recruits of all three services. That work is being conducted independently of service and commands, and is directly reported to Ministers. In the spirit of openness the findings will be made public.
	I am mindful of the fact that the Defence Committee is due to conduct its own inquiry into this most important of areas early next year, and as ever I look forward to a constructive, critical report. I ask hon. Members to wait for the facts to emerge—many can be speculated on—before reaching judgments on the matter.
	The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who is also not in his place, asked about Army manning levels. The current manning requirement is 106,978. That figure was decided on as a result of a review of the Army's future manpower requirement.
	As of September 2002, the whole Army's strength stood at 101,665, so there is a significant shortfall, but recent performance has been particularly encouraging, with strength increasing by 1,361 personnel in the past 12 months. I hope that that will lay to rest that hoary old chestnut, which keeps coming back time after time.
	It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: For the convenience of the House, we shall take together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Road User Charging

Ordered,
	That the Road User Charging (Charges and Penalty Charging) (London) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 2285) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
	That the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 2313) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
	That the Trunk Road Charging Schemes (Bridges and Tunnels) (England) Procedure Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 2303) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Heppell.]

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE CONVENTION

Motion made,
	That the Order [12th June] relating to the Standing Committee on the Convention be amended, in paragraph (4)(b), by leaving out the words 'or be counted in the quorum'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That at the sitting on Tuesday 22nd October, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to proceedings on Motions in the name of Mr Charles Kennedy as if the day were one of the Opposition Days allotted under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business).
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 24th October, the first Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the adjournment of the House shall lapse three hours after it has been made or at Five o'clock, whichever is the later.
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 23rd October, if proceedings on opposition business are not concluded before Seven o'clock any Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for that hour shall stand over to the conclusion of proceedings on opposition business and may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours after it has been entered upon.—[Mr. Heppell.]

POLICING (STRANGFORD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Iris Robinson: It was Edmund Burke who said:
	XGood order is the foundation of all good things".
	In that vein, it is crucial to the maintenance of order throughout this country that the laws that exist to protect people's rights are enforced to the letter. It is our duty to strive to ensure that those who would wish to see law and order undermined and damaged are punished accordingly.
	Responsibility for the enforcement of law and order rests with police forces throughout the country, supported by the judicial system. However, if the criminal is not brought before the court to face conviction, the processes of law and order cannot be applied and the offender remains outside the system. In addition, pressure on police resources, which is growing on a weekly, if not daily, basis, means that officers' ability to apprehend offenders is decreasing at a proportionate rate. Without a vehicle to enforce the law effectively, the law itself is undermined. The unparalleled lack of manpower being experienced by the Police Service is having a hugely negative impact on the force's ability to maintain law and order and is affecting all areas of Northern Ireland, including Strangford.
	Strangford consists of a section of the Castlereagh district command unit, the majority of the Ards district command unit and part of the Down district command unit. In the past, Castlereagh, which has a population in excess of 70,000, has been serviced by two police stations at Carryduff and Dundonald. As a result of the cuts imposed by Patten, Dundonald and Carryduff stations have had their operational capacity removed and now remain only as a cosmetic police presence in those areas. All calls are now diverted to the DCU headquarters at Castlereagh, where a response is committed. The Castlereagh area takes in Ballybeen, Northern Ireland's second largest housing estate, which has 10,000 residents and is covered by the police station at Dundonald. Between April 2001 and April 2002, Dundonald police station received more than 6,000 telephone calls from the public, 5,317 of which required police attendance.
	As a result of the Patten report, Dundonald police station now has only one inspector, one beat manager and five beat officers attached to it. It also has a further eight officers fulfilling security and guard duties. Of that cohort, two officers must deal with inquiries and firearms renewals on a daily basis. When shift patterns are taken into consideration, that means that Dundonald station is unable to provide any full-time beat services for its immediate area or to the second largest housing estate in Northern Ireland, and must rely on services from Castlereagh, several miles across the city.
	Similarly, Carryduff police station is situated in an area of suburban Belfast that has witnessed a huge expansion in population over recent years. Over the past year, more than 13,000 calls were made to Carryduff police station, yet earlier this year the people of Carryduff were forced to lead a campaign to prevent its closure, which had been proposed in order to cut back on expenditure. Public meetings were held and a petition carrying several thousand signatures from both sides of the community was presented. An alternative shop-front facility had been proposed, but given the clear and present terrorist threat, that would neither protect the officers from terrorist attack, nor encourage members of the public to enter it.
	Carryduff police station has one sergeant and four officers attached to it, again resulting in its capacity to provide a proactive service to the local community becoming a practical impossibility. To meet the constraints of the Patten Commission recommendations, provision of security has been centralised to DCU headquarters at Castlereagh. Of a total of 111 regular officers currently serving, only 27 are available for response duties, which breaks down to about seven per shift to cover the whole area. Moreover, they have only four cars and one motorcycle available to them.
	The story in the Ards district command unit is much the same. In the town of Newtownards, which has a population in excess of 30,000, 45 officers are registered for day-to-day duties. Taking into account those officers who have been seconded elsewhere, there are about 10 full-time officers to cover each shift. Of those 10, two or three officers will carry out security and administrative tasks, and taking into account those on sick leave and holiday, six officers are left to look after a significant town. That means that there are two in a car, two on the beat and a relief back at the station.
	As for the police stations at Comber, Donaghadee, Greyabbey and Portaferry, none operates on a full-time basis. Officers who are able to work must complete security and administrative duties. That has minimised, if not removed, the force's ability to provide a visible presence on the ground and a deterrent against crime. The service falls far short of the security that residents demand.
	The Patten report recommended that there should be a core of 7,500 full-time officers in a normalised environment, yet at present there are only 6,911 full-time officers, who are required to meet an ever-increasing burden. In April this year, Assistant Chief Constable Alan McQuillan admitted that officers in some areas were being forced to work up to 80 or 90 hours a week to make up for the shortfall in manpower.
	At a time when complying with Patten is forcing a cut in manpower, both domestic and terrorist-related crimes are spiralling out of control. Between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002, recorded crime in Northern Ireland increased by 16.6 per cent. to 139,786 offences. At the same time, the overall clearance rate decreased by 7 per cent. to 20.1 per cent.
	In Castlereagh, the number of recorded crimes increased from 3,218 to 4,802—an increase of 50 per cent. on the previous year, while the detection rate decreased to a miserable 16 per cent. We now face a situation where crime in Castlereagh has risen by an incredible 125 per cent. since the signing of the Belfast agreement in 1998. Problems in Castlereagh will be compounded this year by the fact that 23 officers have accepted the severance deal offered through Patten, while only six officers will be made available to the local commander.
	In the Down district, the number of offences rose by more than 500, an increase of 12 per cent., while the detection rate has dropped from 27 to 17.5 per cent. In the Ards district, the number of crimes has also risen by more than 500 to 5,112, an increase of 11 per cent., with the detection rate dropping to 24 per cent.
	In Newtownards recently, the proprietor of a local petrol station that had been robbed on several occasions contacted the police regarding the suspicious activity of a car in the vicinity and of a number of youths who had come into his shop. The police confirmed that the car had been stolen and the shopkeeper decided to close early for fear of being robbed again. He asked the local police if they would send a car to patrol the area while he removed the day's takings, but was refused as the only car on patrol was dealing with an incident and there was insufficient manpower in the station to send officers to the area. That petrol station is just 400 m from the police station.
	It has been highlighted in the provincial press in recent days that overall confidence in policing is declining, with approval figures decreasing by 3 per cent. to 66 per cent.
	A recent development in Killyleagh witnessed a number of individuals obtain housing in the town after they had allegedly been forced out of Downpatrick by paramilitaries, accused of antisocial behaviour. What was described as a mini crime wave commenced in the town, and it was attributed to the individuals in question. Pensioners were attacked and robbed in their homes, cars were damaged, stolen and burnt out, yet the police were unable to apprehend the culprits. Two local residents then took it upon themselves to approach those being accused of the trouble and were subsequently charged with assault and ordered by the courts to stay out of the town in which they both lived and worked. A petition was subsequently organised and several thousand signatures were put to it requesting that the two residents be allowed back into their home town. Those who signed the petition were not, as one might expect, the supporters of paramilitaries or vigilantes but respectable people from Killyleagh whose patience with the criminals had run out and whose confidence in the police's ability to defend them had plummeted. I am sure that the House will agree that that is a most worrying development.
	On the basis of the unparalleled rise in non-terrorist crime alone, there is a rock-solid argument for increasing policing resources in my constituency. Problems being experienced elsewhere in Northern Ireland are having a direct and negative effect on the ability of the police in my constituency to do their job properly. It cannot be denied that since the inception of Patten and the destruction of the RUC morale within the ranks of police officers in Strangford has sunk to an all-time low.
	The Government need to wake up to the fact that we do not have the peace that was the working assumption on which the Patten commission relied when making its manpower recommendations. It is difficult to understand how the police could ever be expected to operate effectively when they are coping in non-peace circumstances with a manpower level below that recommended for peacetime.
	That has compounded the problem for officers dealing with local policing issues in Strangford. The continuing threat of terrorist violence across the Province, and the almost constant street conflict in Belfast that has been stoked up by IRA-Sinn Fein, have necessitated the diversion of Strangford police resources to the conflict areas. In Castlereagh, for example, during the period from June 2001 to January 2002, 20 per cent. of the district's resources had to be transferred to other areas in Northern Ireland to assist in tackling street violence. That represented approximately 30 officers being taken every day out of the area in which they were based, to address paramilitary orchestrated violence.
	The levels of violence outside my area are having a deeply negative impact on the Police Service's ability to maintain law and order in my constituency. Street violence has now reached a level not witnessed since the height of the troubles in the mid-1970s. According to official police records in 2001, almost 1,600 people were injured as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland. There were 353 shooting incidents, more than 350 bombing incidents, 332 incidents of paramilitary-style punishment attacks, and 107 firearms and explosives finds.
	In the first eight months of this year, 1,248 attacks against the police have been logged; more than 1,100 missiles have been thrown at police officers; 400 police officers have been injured, and more than 3 million hours of overtime have been clocked up by serving officers in an attempt to provide an acceptable level of security. At the same time, there have been 244 shooting incidents, 153 bombing attacks and 244 paramilitary-style attacks.
	From 1998, when the Belfast agreement was signed, more than 100 people have been killed as a direct result of the security situation in Northern Ireland, and more than 6,000 people have been injured. There have been almost 1,500 shootings and more than 1,000 incidents involving bombs and incendiaries. More than 1,250 people have been subjected to paramilitary-style assault, more than 1,300 persons have been charged with terrorist and serious public order offences, and there have been more than 1,400 firearms and explosives finds.
	The fact is that the police are attempting to provide security for the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland with the resources set for policing a peaceful society, while being forced to continue the war against terrorism. It is only logical, and inevitable, when a police service is treated in such a shoddy and unprofessional manner, that crime will rocket as resources plunge. Of course, letting more than 900 convicted thugs out of jail has hardly had a positive impact on the lives of people in communities across Northern Ireland. Communities are even more polarised, and even more under the control of paramilitary organisations. The fact of the matter is that the officer on the street knows that the implementation of Patten is to blame for the crisis in policing.
	After 15 months of continuous street disorder, and with the threat from both republican and loyalist paramilitary groups running at the highest level for five years, the collective pressure on resources has left
	Xlittle to deliver ordinary day-to-day policing".
	So said acting Chief Constable Colin Cramphorn on 22 August this year. He went on to say:
	XIn many areas we are simply responding to emergency calls and little else."
	In the year to July 2002, more than 730 officers were injured, while the impact of working excessive hours has provided little respite for officers.
	As Colin Cramphorn stated:
	XSuch levels of activity cannot be sustained indefinitely."
	In east Belfast, the number of officers required has doubled because of paramilitary activity and street violence. Assistant Chief Constable Alan McQuillan stated on 30 August that he envisaged no end to that activity. The new Chief Constable, Hugh Orde, should never be forced into a position of grovelling for resources to prevent his force from witnessing complete meltdown.
	Any suggestion that the 1,949 full-time reserve should be stood down is patent madness. Effective policing must be promoted above political expediency. It is distressing that at a time when the Government should be retreating from Patten to provide improved policing, they are planning further concessions to accommodate the IRA's insatiable demands. The drive to reduce manpower has meant that the force has been stretched to breaking point. At the same time, officers are tied up under a mountain of bureaucracy generated by the ombudsman, the oversight commissioner and the so-called Human Rights Commission, and in implementing the 190 Patten recommendations. Meanwhile, the IRA continues to be pandered to and its nefarious activities go on unabated.
	The oversight commissioner, Mr. Tom Constantine, has warned that violence may wreck policing reform. Why should such politically motivated reform be a priority? Should not the provision of effective policing be the Government's primary aim? Should not the primary objective of policing in any modern liberal democracy be maintaining law and order and challenging criminals and terrorists?
	In closing, three matters are clear. First, the retention of the full-time reserve is crucial to avoid a security meltdown. Secondly, police recruitment policy must be reviewed. It is vital that Hugh Orde apply to the Secretary of State for a suspension of the 50:50 recruitment rule. Many hundreds of applicants from a Protestant background have been denied a place in the force on account of their religion and nothing else. An increase in intimidation of Roman Catholic officers, and a decrease in the applications from Roman Catholics are generating a recruitment crisis. There have been insufficient acceptable Roman Catholic recruits to fulfil the requirements. The 50:50 rule means that the number cannot be made up with Protestants because they are capped at the level of Catholics who enter. The result is an unacceptable overall shortfall of officers.
	Thirdly, the programme of civilianisation of posts has run aground. That policy has also been severely undermined by the 50:50 rule. It was estimated that the programme might free as many as 300 officers for other duties, but only 29 Roman Catholics have applied for those civilian positions.
	Unless the Northern Ireland Office takes its head out of the sand on the genuine problems that the police face in Northern Ireland, matters will continue to deteriorate. It also appears certain that the redeployment of resources to other districts leaves my constituency prey to criminals and vulnerable to attack.
	I urge the Minister to ensure that the funding and other necessary resources are made available to the Chief Constable to reverse the predicament and avert catastrophic consequences.

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) for choosing policing as the subject of our debate. She raised many issues on policing in general, as well as specifically in the Strangford area. Although I cannot comment in depth on the circumstances in specific areas—the deployment of police resources is, of course, a matter for the Chief Constable—as Minister with responsibility for security, policing goes to the heart of my responsibilities. I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the anxieties that she raised. I have only a short time, so I shall respond in greater depth in writing, if she is happy with that, after the debate when I have read the details in Hansard.
	On the hon. Lady's general point about the overall effectiveness of the criminal justice system, I draw her attention to the law and order group that the Secretary of State has established, in which he meets the Attorney-General and Ministers in the Lord Chancellor's Department. They are advised and supported by the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable. We are examining every aspect of the criminal justice process to ensure that the process and management of the criminal justice system are as effective as we can make them.
	The hon. Lady is right to talk about a sense of growing problems involving crime. She draws attention to concerns that we all share about the continuing security situation that is faced by the police and security forces in Northern Ireland. However, I would refute the main thrust of her argument, which is that the Belfast agreement is the cause of the current security situation in the Province. She would expect me to say that, but there are many issues on which we agree.
	I argue that since the signing of the agreement, the overall security situation has improved. However, serious terrorist and public order challenges remain. The hon. Lady rightly quoted horrific statistics of shootings and bombings. Since the middle of May and throughout the summer months, there have been serious and sustained violent incidents in the Short Strand area in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).
	There are still sporadic outbreaks of violence in the north of the city too. During the violence, police have been attacked with blast bombs, petrol bombs, acid bombs, bricks and other missiles. We must consider what sort of a mind makes acid or petrol bombs, and hands them out to teenagers to throw at police officers. The police face extremely serious problems. They have even come under live gunfire from both traditions. Since the beginning of the year, more than 600 police officers have been injured in north and east Belfast. Recently, the police and the Army established a high-profile presence on both sides of the community in east Belfast. It has brought a welcome degree of peace and calm to the area. However, the hon. Lady knows as well as I do that that can never be a permanent solution to the problems.
	In Belfast, the police can call on up to seven level 1 and 10 level 2 tactical support groups. That is a total of 502 officers to be deployed in the Belfast area, at any one time to deal with public disorder. As has been the case throughout the troubles, military resources are deployed in support of the police. However, as the hon. Lady rightly says—she has drawn attention to the concerns expressed by Mr. Cramphorn, the then acting Chief Constable, in August—the demands that public order policing have placed on the service directly affect police capabilities elsewhere.
	For our part, I assure the hon. Lady that the Government will continue to do everything that we can to create an environment in Northern Ireland where the need to commit such a level of resources is no longer necessary. It remains the responsibilities of others with influence in the community to do everything that they can to help us achieve that goal. On an occasion like this it is important to look to the past as we consider the current arrangements for policing.
	I want to respond to the comments that the hon. Lady made several times in her contribution when she talked in general terms of what she described as the wanton destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As we look back, we must never forget that, over their history, the police in Northern Ireland have borne the brunt of a sustained and brutal terrorist assault. They have responded with gallantry and professionalism. They richly deserve the support and gratitude of all in Northern Ireland.
	It is hard to believe that it is more than two years since Her Majesty the Queen visited Hillsborough to confer the honour of the George cross on the RUC. On that historic occasion, Her Majesty paid tribute to the police.
	She said that the award was:
	Xa singular acknowledgement of the gallantry and courage shown, the pain and suffering endured, and in all too many cases the ultimate sacrifice paid by members of the Constabulary during the past 30 years of terrorism and civil unrest."
	The Government have now set up the RUC George Cross Foundation to ensure that those sacrifices and achievements are remembered and honoured in a dignified and appropriate manner.
	I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to respond to her other comments in writing.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.